Page 2
that runaway suffer numerous harms while away from home including prostitution, involvement in pornography, coercive sexual abuse, robbery, burglary, drug use and general victimization such as assult. Of these, prostitution is the main type of sexual exploitation involving runaways.(9) Browne and Finkelhor,(10) in a 1985 review article chronicled the short- and long-term effects of female child sexual victimization. According to these authors, initial effects included fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, aggression and sexually inappropriate behavior. Long-term effects included depression and self-destructive behavior, anxiety, feelings of isolation and stigma, poor self esteem, difficulty, in trusting others, a tendency toward revictimization, substance abuse and sexual maladjustment. The Brown and Finkelhor profile of the more seriously victimized female is almost synonymous with the profile of the juvenile female prostitute. Without much specific knowledge, we can only speculate on how these traumatic events impact, over time, the subsequent lives of runaway children. The U.S. Congress took important steps to address this problem by passing the Missing Children Act in 1982 (Pub. L. 97-292, 96 Stat. 1259, 28 U.S.C. sections 1 note, 534) and, in 1984, the Missing Children's Assistance Act, Title IV of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. In June 1984, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) was established as part of the Federal government's commitment to the issue of missing children. The NCMEC serves as a clearinghouse of information and assistance concerning missing children and the criminal and sexual exploitation of children. To further support the Federal government's role in addressing the Missing Children issue, the Attorney General appointed nine members to a statutory Advisory Board on missing children. One of the purposes of the Board is to clarify the issue of missing and exploited children and recommend concrete action to alleviate the associated problems. This research program is specifically designed to inform and implement the Advisory Board's recommendations. II. Program Goal and Objectives A. Program goal To increase our knowledge of and develop effective treatment alternatives pertaining to the psychological consequences for the parents, the missing child, and for other siblings
during the period of disappearance and each is willing and ready to participate after the child is recovered; including in the study. There are no restrictions on the consequences of any abuse or sexual missing children's programs agreeing to exploitation a missing child may have collaborate with more than one research experienced organization during this application B. Major Objectives process, as only one applicant will be selected to conduct this study. Because 1. To describe the dynamics and psychological consequences of a principal focus of this research initiative is to provide for intensive abduction of a child for both the family assessment of parental and nonfamily and the child. abductions it is necessary to carefully To determine high risk factors for sexual exploitation among missing select study sites which operate in children. jurisdictions with sufficient prevalence 3. To determine what factors in the of this phenomenon to answer the missing experience seem to make a research questions. difference in terms of ameliorating short Each site must employ a full time and long-term consequences. research psychologist with 4. To identify and document promising psychometric, counseling, and crisis treatment alternatives for families of intervention skills to assess the missing children. psychological characteristics of the families at various stages. The III. Research Strategy psychologists must assist the research The target population for this research organization in developing and refining includes all categories of missing the research design and data collection children, which encompass parental instruments, sensitizing the design to abductions, stranger abductions, individual sites, and documenting the runaways, and throwaways/pushouts. services provided to the study sample. The research program is designed to The research psychologists would also identify effective treatment strategies train and supervise those program stafi/ for ameliorating the adverse volunteers involved in data collection. psychological consequences of These planning activities should take abduction and sexual exploitation. place during the first six to nine months One award will be made to a research of the study. agency to conduct the study at three to Data collection should begin with the five sites. Applicant organizations will first contact made by the parents/ apply directly for the grant award and guardians to the center. At this point, may choose to provide limited support through contracts to the sites to cover the police may have already been contacted, and the initial search for the on-site costs critical for conducting the research. This would include costs for child may have begun. The missing children's program immediately begins the research psychologist, training and travel for key field staff and volunteers, to assist the parents with whatever services are needed at this time. These and other costs associated with data collection. No funds are to be used to might include: notification of proper supplement existing services. authorities and the national, state and Each participating site must be an local missing children's networks; operational missing children's program assistance with media/public service (List of Missing Children's Programs announcements; assistance with law enforcement interviews; and development of a strategy for reducing referral mechanism, and intervention stress to the family. Retrospective data services. Sufficient caseflow should be from the pre-missing period should also defined in terms of the proposed be collected during this period. This research questions, and should inquiry should focus on both positive determine, in part, the analysis plan. and negative family experiences prior to The program will require a collaborative the child becoming missing. effort at each site between the During the period of nonrecovery, the researcher and the missing children's study should document the level and program. The researcher, in conjunction nature of psychological services with the sites, must document that the provided to both parents and siblings program has established continuing and the manner in which the services contact with clients so that the were provided. During the period when psychological consequences can be the child is recovered, data should be assessed throughout the missing child gathered on the mental health and experience. medical services provided to the family The applicant must secure For those recovered children who must cooperation and provide written enter the judicial system, data should be verification from the pr ram sites that gathered on the program's services to Page 3
Children," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 53(2); pp. 244-260, (1983). (8) A.W. Burgess, C.R. Hartman, et al., “The Impact of Child Pornography and Sex Rings on Child Victims and Their Families," In A.W. Burgess, (Ed.) Child Pornography and Sex Rings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, (1984). (9) G.T. Hotaling and D. Finkelhor, The Sexual Exploitation of Missing Children: A Research Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, (Washington, DC, October, 1985). (10) A. Browne and D. Finkelhor, The Impart of Child Sexual Abuse: A Review of the Research, Psychological Bulletin (in press), 1986. Verne L. Speirs, Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention. {FR Doc. 86–17937 Filed 8–7–86; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-M
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Certification Process for the ACTION: Notice of adverse effect wage rates for 1986; correction.
accordance with applicable law and are published herein, and which are governmental agency having an interest character and in the localities specified in the rates determined as prevailing is therein. encouraged to submit wage rate and The determinations in these decisions fringe benefit information for of prevailing rates and fringe benefits consideration by the Department. have been made in accordance with 29 Further information and selfCFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary explanatory forms for the purpose of of Labor pursuant to the provisions of submitting this data may be obtained by the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 Employment Standards Administration, U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal Wage and Hour Division, Division of statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Appendix, as well as such additional Avenue NW, Room S-3504, Washington, statutes as may from time to time be DC 20210. The numbers of the decisions listed in the Government Printing Office document entitled "General Wage accordance with the provisions of the Determinations Issued Under the Davisforegoing statutes, constitute the Bacon and Related Acts" being modified minimum wages payable on Federal and are listed by Volume, State, and page federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the number (s). Dates of publication in the specified classes engaged on contract Federal Register are in parentheses work of the character and in the following the decisions being modified. localities described therein. Good cause is hereby found for not Volume I utilizing notice and public procedure Connecticut: thereon prior to the issuance of these CT86–1 (Jan. 3, 1986) pp. 67-68 District of Columbia: determinations as prescribed n 5 U.S.C. DC86–1 (Jan. 3, 1986). p. 80 pp. 87-88 553 and not providing for delay in the Pennsylvania: effective date as prescribed in that PA86-4 (Jan. 3, 1986) pp. 821-827, pp. section, because the necessity to issue 827a-827b current construction industry wage Pennsylvania: determinations frequently and in large PA86-5 (Jan. 3, 1986).. volume causes procedures to be Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania: General wage determination PA86–12 (Jan. 3, 1986). PP. 887-888 decisions, and modifications and Pennsylvania: supersedes decisions thereto, contain no PA86–14 (Jan. 3, 1986). Virginia: expiration dates and are effective from VA86-5 (Jan. 3, 1986)......... p. 1065 their date of notice in the Federal Volume II lowa: PP. 29, 31 lowa: applicable decision, together with any IA86–3 (Jan. 3, 1986). modifications issued, must be made a Illinois: IL86-5 (Jan. 3, 1986). part of every contract for performance pp. 116, 119 Illinois: of the described work within the IL86-8 (Jan. 3, 1986).. geographic area indicated as required by Illinois: an applicable Federal prevailing wage IL86–11 (Jan. 3, 1986) law and 29 CFR Part 5. The wage rates Kansas: and fringe benefits, notice of which is KS86–8 (Jan. 3, 1986).......... pp. 335-337
SUMMARY: This notice corrects the Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of August, 1986. Robert A. Schaerfl, Director, U.S. Employment Service. (FR Doc. 86–17903 Filed 8-7-86; 8:45 am)
Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division
Minimum Wages for Federal and General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in Page 4
guarantee of ACATS deliveries in certain circummstances. Section 10 of Rule 50 provides that when a Receiving Member accepts a customer account transfer, NSCC enters all continuous net settlement ("CNS"')-eligible items 3 in that account into its CNS accounting operation as of the third business day after trade date ("T+3"), unless the Receiving Member notifies NSCC otherwise. Normally, once the positions are netted, NSCC becomes the contra party representing the opposite side and, in effect, guarantees the other side's performance. NSCC's proposal would adjust NSCC's CNS settlement guarantee for ACATS transfers to eliminate NSCC's guarantee to ACATS Receiving Members if the Delivering Member failsto-deliver and fails to pay any portion of its money settlement obligation to NSCC on settlement day (T+5). Thus, the proposal would authorize NSCC, if it so determines, to eliminate the member's open CNS ACAT deliver obligations from the CNS accounting operation and reverse related credits of the Receiving Member.* If NSCC so determines, the
ACATS item is exited from NSCC and the parties to the transaction must settle the transaction, it at all, outside NSCC.5 NSCC will continue to guarantee settlement of ACATS CNS-processed transfers, but only if the Delivering Member: (1) Satisfies its ACATS-related CNS securities delivery obligations on settlement day; or (2) pays its money settlement obligation due NSCC on settlement day, including marks-to-themarket due NSCC with respect to CNS ACATS fails. II. NSCC's Rationale for the Proposal NSCC believes the proposal is consistent with the purposes and requirements of section 17A of the Act because it would enable NSCC to safeguard securities and funds within its custody or control or for which it is responsible. NSCC states in its filing that, because Rule 50 affords ACATS CNS items the same guarantees as other CNS items, NSCC is exposed to considerable financial risk. Because ACATS items enter the CNS system at no value, when the position is marked on T+5, NSCC, as the guarantor and contra party, becomes liable to the Receiving Member for the entire value of the position if the Delivering Member fails to pay the "full value" mark. 6
NSCC also believes that there is good cause for approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. The NYSE and the national Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") recently have mandated use of ACATS and NSCC's risk has increased along with increased use of the service. NSCC believes that acceptance of this risk is no longer permissible. III. Discussion The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A of the Act and, therefore, is approving the proposed rule change. As discussed below, the Commission agrees with NSCC that the proposal will enable NSCC to safeguard securities and funds within its custody or control or for which it is responsible by eliminating the risk posed by guaranteeing all ACATS-CNS settlement obligations. As discussed in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 23401,8 the Commission acknowledges the critical differences between processing regular-way and ACATS CNS items. Unlike ordinary CNS items which enter CNS at contract value, ACATS CNS items enter CNS unvalued, reflecting their true nature as "free" transfers. To enable CNS use for ACATS, however, ACATS items need to be valued. Therefore, ACATS items like all CNS items, are marked-to-the-market on the morning of settlement day, i.e., T+5. The ACATS items thus are marked to their full value as of the prior day's closing price. On the morning of settlement day, the Delivering Member's CNS projection report shows a short securities position and its CNS accounting summary shows a cash debit for the "full value" mark. Conversely, the Receiving Member's projection report shows a long securities position and the summary shows a cash credit for the mark. If the Delivering Member fulfills his ACATS delivery obligation on T+5, the Delivering Member's short position is cancelled and the money debit for the mark is offset by a credit. At the same time, the Receiving Member's long position is offset and the money credit is debited, wiping out the mark. The result is a "free" transfer of securities; no money is paid by either the Delivering or Receiving Member. The Commission recognizes that under NSCC Rule 50 in its current form, NSCC may be at risk for the full market value of the ACATS position. If the
* See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 2203 (November 26, 1985), 50 FR 49638 (December 315 and 22941 (February 24, 1986). 51 FR 7170 (February 28, 1986). (July 7, 1986). 51 FR 25280 (July 11, 1986).
most significant aspects of such statements.
the proposal (File No. SR-NSCC-86-07) be, and hereby is, approved. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation pursuant to delegated authority.
Dated: July 31, 1986. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary (FR Doc. 86–17926 Filed 8–7-86; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
(Release No. 34-23492; File No. SR-OCC86-16]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Proposed Rule Change Establishing Procedures for Filing, Revoking or Modifying Exercise Notices After the 7:00 P.M. Deadline
Delivering Member fails-to-deliver but pays the “full value" mark, NSCC still will be able to perform its obligations to the contra party by buying-in or borrowing the securities. On the other hand, if the Delivering Member fails to deliver and fails to pay the "full value" mark, NSCC, as the contra party and guarantor, still must deliver the securities to the Receiving Member. Yet, because the Delivering Member has failed to pay the mark, NSCC has received no funds to cover NSCC's payment obligation on T+5 and the delivery obligation associated with the ACATS CNS item. Moreover, even if NSCC bought-in or borrowed securities for delivery to the Receiving Member, NSCC could not expect to be paid by the Receiving Member; the accounting entries just would "wash." In light of NSCC's financial risk, the Commission agrees with NSCC that it is appropriate to adjust its CNS settlement guarantee for ACATS Receiving Members if the Delivering Member failsto-deliver and fails to pay any portion of the entire money settlement obligation on settlement day. The Commission recognizes the important function ACATS serves in promoting the prompt and accurate transfer of customer accounts and believes that NSCC, and consequently its clearing community, should not be exposed to increased finanacial risk from its ACATS-related activity. Furthermore, to the extent an ACATS transfer is not processed because of a Delivering Member's default on settlement date, customers of the defaulting member who had sought the ACATS transfer would continue to be protected up to the amount of coverage provided under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.9 Finally, the Commission finds good cause to approve the proposal on an accelerated basis. When the ACATS service was first offered, participation was limited and the risks to NSCC were limited. The NYSE and the NASD, however, recently have mandated use of ACATS. Due to the increased risk posed by increased use of the service, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to approve the proposed rule change before the thirtieth day after notice of the filing appeared in the Federal Register. On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that NSCC's proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with section 17A of the Act. Accordingly, It Is Therefore Ordered, under section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 789(b)(1) (the "Act"), notice is hereby given that on July 31, 1986, the Options Clearing Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's OCC Rule 801(a) sets a deadline of 7:00 P.M. (Central Time) for the filing of exercise notices. Exercise notices filed prior to 7:00 P.M. may be revoked or modified until that time for the purpose of correcting bona fide errors on the part of the Clearning Member or a customer. On a number of occasions, Clearing Members have failed to discover material errors until after the 7:00 P.M. deadline. Such errors may take the form of mistakes in notices submitted (e.g., wrong series, account type, sub-account, or quantity) or omissions (e.g., failure to file an exercise notice in response to a timely exercise instruction from a customer). Inability to correct such errors can cause substantial losses. Clearing Members have therefore requested that OCC examine th feasibility of permitting exceptions to the 7:00 P.M. deadline. The 7:00 P.M. deadline was imposed for operational reasons. OCC's nightly processing begins at approximately 8:30 P.M., and the time between 7:00 P.M. and 8:30 P.M. is needed to edit Clearing Member imput. However, OCC does have the capacity to accept a limited amount of additional input, including corrections of input previously submitted, during the editing process. As long as the additional input remains limited in amount, acceptance would not appreciably extend nightly processing time. Acceptance of additional exercise input becomes more difficult once nightly processing begins, and grows increasingly difficult as the night progresses, because operations previously performed would have to be redone to take the new input into account. A point would eventually be reached where the acceptance of new exercise input would threaten OCC's ability to complete its processing on a timely basis. That point will vary in time from night to night, depending on such factors as the volume of data being processed, the presence or absence of operational problems, etc. For these reasons, OCC has concluded that the present 7:00 P.M. deadline must be retained, but that OCC should have the ability to make exceptions in cases where it can safety do so, provided that safeguards are established to ensure that such exceptions are an infrequent occurrence
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change would permit OCC, in its discretion, to allow Clearing Members to file, revoke, or modify exercise notices after the 7:00 P.M. deadline prescribed in OCC's Rules for the purpose of correcting bona fide
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A). (B). and (C) below, of the
All submissions should refer to the file number in the caption above and should be submitted within 21 days after the date of this publication. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. Dated: August 1, 1986. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary (FR Doc. 86–17927 Filed 8–7–86; 8:45 am)
(Release No. 35-24156-A; 31-816]
Proposed Rule 801(e) would authorize specified senior officers of OCC, in their discretion, to permit late filings of exercise notices and late revocations or modifications of exercise notices previously filed (referred to collectively herein as “late filings"), solely for the purpose of correcting bona fide errors on the part of Clearing Members or their customers, subject to certain conditions. The first condition relates to timing. The late filing would have to be submitted at a time early enough, in the judgment of the officer making the decision, to allow OCC to complete its nightly processing on a reasonably timely basis notwithstanding any resulting delay. As practical matter, late filing submitted before 8:30 P.M. would ordinarily satisfy this condition, because they could be processed together with timely filings. Filing submitted after 8;30 P.M. would have a more disruptive effect on the processing cycle, and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but with a view towards accepting them if possible where the alternative might be a substantial loss for a Clearing Member or its customer. The second condition is payment of a sizeable late charge. The purpose of this requirement is threefold. First, it would create an incentive for Clearing Members and their customers' to exercise care in connection with exercise instructions, so as to minimize the number of mistake requiring late filings. Second, it would tend to ensure that the late filing procedure would be used only in cases involving substantial loss potential, and therefore warranting the interruption of OCC's normal processing cycle. Third, it would compensate OCC for the cost of developing the special systems needed to accommodate late filings and the additional processing time involved. The third condition is that the Clearing Member deliver to OCC and to each affected Exchange, within two business days after submitting a late filing, a memorandum describing the error that give rise to the filing. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate verification that late filings are in fact attributable to bona fide errors. Finally, submission of late filings would be deemed a violation of the procedures of OCC, and would be subject to disciplinary action in appropriate cases. The proposed rule change is consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"') because it would further the public interest by adopting a more flexible system for correction of exercise notices, thereby reducing the potential for losses to Clearing Members caused by errors or omissions in exercise activity. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statment on Burden on Competition OCC does not believes that the filing will have any impact on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The proposed rule change was prompted by concerns expressed by Clearing Members. However, formal comments were not requested or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to which the selfregulatory organization consents, the Commission will: (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the abovementioned self-regulatory organization.
Energy Investments, Inc.; Energy Investments, Inc. ("Energy"). 10700 East 350 Highway, Kansas City, Missouri 64138, has filed an application with this Commission pursuant to section 2(a)(3) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 ("Act") requesting an order declaring that it will not become an “electric utility company" within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act as a result of transactions set forth in the application which were summarized in a notice issued by the Commission on July 24, 1986 (HCAR No. 24156). That notice incorrectly referenced the S.E.C. file number as "38-816" rather than the correct, above-referenced number of "31-816". The July 24, 1986 notice also did not include the address of Energy as stated above. The application and any amendments thereto are available for public inspection through the Commission's Office of Public Reference. Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing should submit their views in writing by August 18, 1986 to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549, and serve a copy on the applicant at the adddress specified above. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of ar attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for a hearing shall identify specifically the issues of fact or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in this matter. After said date to application, as filed or as it may be amended, may be granted.
"OCC assumes that Clearing Members would pass on late charges to their customers in cases where it was the customer's error that necessitated the late filing.
Docket No. 44198-R--1-R 4 Parties: Members of International Air Transport Association. Date Filed: July 25, 1986. Subject: North/Central Pacific Cargo Rates. Proposed Effective Date: October 1, 1986.
Date Filed: July 29, 1986. Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: August 26, 1986. Description: Application of Compagnie National Air France, pursuant to section 402 of the Act and Subpart Q of the Regulations, requests renewal of its foreign air carrier permit to serve Anchorage, Alaska on a stopover basis.
Docket No. 44217 Parties: Members of International Air Transport Association. Date Filed: August 1, 1986. Subject: Passenger Fare AdjustmentLebanon. Proposed Effective Date: August 21, 1986.
Issuer Delisting; Application To Withdraw From Listing and Registration; Hannaford Bros. Co. (Common Stock, $.75 Par Value) August 4, 1986. Hannaford Bros. Co. has filed an application with the Securities and the specified security from listing and The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing this security from listing and registration include the following: The Company's common stock was In making the decision to withdraw its Any interested person may, on or before August 25, 1986, submit by letter to the Secretary the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the Exchange and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary (FR Doc. 86–17930 Filed 8-7-86; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 80 10-01-M
Docket No. 44218—R-1 & R-2 Parties: Members of International Air Transport Association. Date Filed: August 1, 1986. Subject: Commodity RatesAuckland-US. Proposed Effective Date: July 27, 1986. Phyllis T. Kaylor, Chief, Documentary Services Division. (FR Doc. 86-17941 Filed 8-7-86; 8:45 am)
Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During the Week Ended August 1, 1986 The following applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity and foreign air carrier permits were filed under Subpart Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for answers, conforming application, or motions to modify scope are set forth below for each application. Following the answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures.
Date Filed: July 30, 1986. Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope: August 27, 1986. Description: Application of Amerijet International, Inc. pursuant to section 401(d)(1)(3) of the Act and Subpart of the Regulations, requests authority to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail: Between any point in any State of the United States or the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, on the one hand, and, on the other: (a) Any point in Canada; (b) Any point in Mexico; (C) Any point in Jamaica, the Bahama Islands, Bermuda, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, Aruba, the Leeward and Winward Islands, and any other foreign place located in the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean Sea; (d) Any point in Central or South America; (e) Any point in Australasia, Indonesia, and Asia as far west as longitude 70 degrees east via a transpacific routing; and
(1) Any point in Greenland, Iceland, the Azores, Europe, Africa, and Asia, as far east as (and including) India. Phyllis T. Kaylor, Chief, Documentary Services Division. (FR Doc. 86–17942 Filed 8–7–86; 8:45 am]
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement: Prince George's County, MD; MD Route 5 AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an enviromental impact statement is being prepared for the proposed widening and interchange improvements on Maryland Route 5 from U.S. 301 Interstate Route 95. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward A. Terry, Jr., Field Operations Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, The Rotunda, Suite 220, 711 W. 40th Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21211, telephone 301/962-4010, and/or Mr. Louis Eg, Deputy Director, Project Development Division, Maryland State Highway Administration, 707 North Calvert Street, Room 310, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, telephone 301/659 1130. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Maryland State Highway Administration, is preparing an environmental impact statement to develop an acceptable alternate to widen a 10 mile portion of MD 5 to 6 through-lanes. Interchange improvements would be included to address safety/capacity problems. At-grade inrtersections would be replaced with interchanges where feasible. In addition to the No-Build, two Build alternates are under consideration. Alternate 2 proposes the reconstruction of MD 5 as an access-controlled freeway. One lane in each direction would be added in the median and signalized intersections would be eliminated. New interchanges would be constructed at Accokeek & Relocated Brandywine Roads, Surratts Road, Coventry Way, and Maryland Route 337 (Allentown Road). The interchange with 1-95 would be reconstructed to include directional ramps from northbound Maryland Route 5 to westbound l-95, and from westbound I-95 to southbound Maryland Route 5. A new interchange at Maryland Route 223 is programmed as a
separate project to be constructed beginning in 1989. Bridges overpassing Maryland Route 5 are proposed at Maryland Route 373 and Burch Hill Road. Maryland Route 5 would overpass Deerpond Lane. Manchester Drive, Schultz Road-Malcolm Road, and Moore Road intersections would be eliminated. Alternate 3 proposes the reconstruction of Maryland Route 5 as an access-controlled freeway. One lane in each direction would be added in the median and traffic signals eliminated. Interchanges would be provided at the same locations as in Alternate 2 and at Burch Hill Road Extended. A bridge overpassing Maryland Route 5 is proposed at Medford Avenue Extended. The Moore Road, Earnshaw Road, and Manchester Drive intersectins would be eliminated. Right turn movements would be permitted to and from Schultz Road, to and from Deerpond Lane, from southbound MD 5 to Old Branch Avenue, and from Old Alexandria Ferry Road to northbound MD 5. An alternates public meeting has been held. A public hearing will be held after circulation of the DEIS. A public notice will give the time and place of the public hearing, and individual notices will be sent to those agencies, groups, and individuals on the mailing list. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposal are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.025, Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The provisions of OMB Circular No. A-95 regarding State and local clearinghouse review of Federal and Federally assisted programs and projects apply to this program.) Fred J. Hempel, Assistant Division Administrator, Baltimore, Maryland. (FR Doc. 86–17753 Filed 8-7-86; 8:45 am]
which the agency proposes to evaluate the effectiveness of the Theft Prevention Standard developed by NHTSA as required under Title VI-Theft Prevention of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. The plan was developed in response to the Congressional requiremnt that the Secretary submit a comprehensive report not later than five years after promulgation of the Theft Prevention Standard as well as Executive Order 12291 which provides for Governmentwide review of existing major Federal Regulations. The agency seeks public review and comment on this evaluation plan. DATE: Comments must be reaceived no later than September 22, 1986. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the evaluation plan free of charge by sending a self-addressed mailing label to Ms. Glorious Harris (NAD-51), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments should refer to the docket and notice number of this notice and be submitted to Docket Section, Room 5109 Nassif Buiding, 400 Seventh St., sw, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours. 8:00 a.m.-4:00p.m., Monday through Friday). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank G. Ephraim, Direactor, Office of Standards Evaluation, Plans and Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5208, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the passage of the Motor Vehicle Theft Lan Enforcement Act of 1984, Congress amended the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act by the creation of Title VI-Theft Prevention. The new Title VI mandates a comprehensive program of vehicle theft countermeasures including: • Inscribing or affixing identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines with high theft rates • Broadening Federal criminal penalties for motor vehicle theft, • Imposing new criminal sanctions against tampering with identification markings, and • Imposing tighter controls on the import and export of motor vehicles. Under Title VI, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA! is charged with: • Selecting the parts to be marked with the appropriate identification mumbers,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(Docket No. T84-01; Notice 10)
Evaluation Plan for the Theft Prevention Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces the publication by NHTSA of its Evaluation Plan for the Theft Prevention Standard. The plan provides the methodology by Page 5
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for Review
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirements to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. Copies of these submissions may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding these information collections should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Room 7221, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
• Establishing the criteria for the selection of high theft lines and making eozed by the selections, • Establishing the performance criteria for inscribing or affixing the nd Cr7 appropriate identification numbers to lepet the specified original equipment and replacement parts for the passenger car lines selected, and • Specifying the manner and form for compliance certification and who will be authorized to certify compliance. Congress has also mandated that the fer Secretary shall submit a report not later than five years after promulgation of the standard required by Title VI. Included in the report shall be the following in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection 614 (b): A. Methods and procedures used by 12 public and private entities for collecting, di compiling and disseminating moden information concerning the theft and MC recovery of passenger cars, trucks, Gry multipurpose vehicles, and motorcycles. B. Number of motor vehicles stolen in Vang and recovered annually. C. Extent to which vehicles stolen are god dismantled or exported. D. Description of the market for stolen parts. E. Costs to manufacturers and consumers, and the benefits of the theft prevention regulation. F. Federal, State and local experience in making arrests and prosecuting persons for violating the 1984 Aci. G. Premiums charged by insurers for comprehensive coverage for vehicles subject to the Act and any changes to these premiums due to this title. H. Adequacy and effectiveness of Federal and State laws and law enforcement mechanisms aimed at preventing the distribution and sale of used parts removed from stolen vehicles. I. Assessment of whether the identification of parts in vehicle classes other than passenger cars would be beneficial. J. Any other information available to the Secretary concerning the impact of the Act. The evaluation plan presents the scope and proposed approach by which NHTSA intends to address the above questions. The primary objectives of the evaluation are:
• To compare the magnitude of vehicle theft before and after enactment of the Theft Prevention Standard; • To measure the effectiveness of vehicle theft countermeasures over time after promulgation of the standard; To determine the benefits accruing from the standard including changes in insurance premiums and payouts; • To determine the costs imposed by the standard including incremental vehicle and parts marking costs. To achieve these objectives, seven specific projects are planned including: • A vehicle fleet analysis; • A theft data collection/analysis study to measure changes in theft rates over time resulting from the standard: • A case study of the marketplace for stolen cars and parts to measure the impacts of the standard on car theft rings, stolen parts distribution networks, and the end users of stolen parts; • A survey of States and localities to take a before/after measure of arrests and convictions for car theft; • A survey of procedures used by insurance companies, Government agencies and trade associations to ascertain the quality of their vehicle theft data and uses thereof; • A manufacturing cost/retail price analysis of vehicle and replacement parts marking methods costs and retail price impacts resulting from the standard requirements, and • A comparative analysis using the change in payout distribution before and after the standard is in effect. A similar study will be made on the effects of the standard on premium rates. NHTSA welcomes public review of the evaluation plan and invites all interested parties to submit comments. It is requested but not required that 10 copies of comments be submitted. Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail. (15 U.S.C. 2034; Delegation of Authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8) Adele Spielberger, Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy. (FR Doc. 86–17857 Filed 8–7–86; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
OMB No. 1545-0047 990) from Income Tax Organization Exempt Under 501(c)(3) Tax Return 566-6150, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. 6880, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Douglas J. Colley, Departmental Reports, Management Office. (FR Doc. 86–17865 Filed 8-7-66; 8:45 am)
(Amendment to Department CircularPublic Debt Series-No. 4-86)
9% percent Treasury Bonds of 2006
amount of the Bond must be in an amount which, based on the stated interest rate of the Bond, will produce a semiannual interest payment of $1,000 or a multiple of $1,000. The minimum and multiple par amount required to obtain the separate components for this offering is $64,000. 6.3. Only Bonds in book-entry from may be separated into their components. Such separation may be effected at any time from the effective date of the amendment to this circular until maturity. A request to obtain the separate components must be made to the Federal Reserve Bank maintaining the account for the book-entry Bonds. Normally, any such request shall be executed by the Federal Reserve Bank within 3 business days after it is received. 6.4. The Principal Component will be payable of February 15, 2006. 6.5. Each Interest Component will be payable on its particular due date designated in Attachment A hereto. 6.6 In the event any payment date is a Saturday, Sunday, or other nonbusiness day, the amount due will be payable (without additional interest) on the nextsucceeding business day. 6.7. Once a book-entry Bond has been separated into its components, each Interest Component and the Principal Component may be maintained and transferred in multiples of $1,000, regardless of the par amount initially required for separation or the resulting amount of each Interest Component. 6.8. Interest Components and Principal Components may be held only in bookentry form. 6.9. Once there is a disposition of any amount of an Interest Component or of a Principal Component, the holder of the Bond will be considered for tax purposes to have stripped the amount of principal allocable to the amount of the components disposed of as of the date such first disposition occurs. Both the retained amount allocable to the stripped principal and the amount disposed of are thereafter treated as discount obligations, and the holders of such are subject to periodic income clusion and other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. 6.10. Interest Components and Principal Components in multiples of $1,000 will be acceptable to secure deposits of Federal public monies at such time and such value as will be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. They will not be acceptable in payment of Federal taxes. 6.11. Unless otherwise provided in this offering circular, the Department of the Treasury's general regulations governing
United States securities apply to the Bonds separated into their components. 7. General Provisions 7.3. The Bonds issued under this circular shall be obligations of the United States, whether held in the fully constituted form or as separate Interest and Principal Components, and, therefore, the faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay, in legal tender, principal and interest on the Bonds. 7.4. Attachment A is incorporated as part of this circular. The foregoing amendment was effected under authority of Chapter 31 of Title 31, United States Code. Notice and public procedures thereof are unnecessary as the fiscal policy of the United States is involved. Gerald Murphy, Fiscal Assistant Secretary. CUSIP Numbers and Designations for the Principal Component and Interest Components of 9% Percent Treasury Bonds of February 15, 2006, CUSIP No. 912810 DU 9 The Principal Component is designated 9%8 persent Treasury Principal (TPRN) 2006 due February 15, 2006, CUSIP No. 912803 AJ 2. INTEREST COMPONENTS
Washington, July 25, 1986. Department of the Treasury Circular, Public Debt Series-No. 4-86, dated January 2, 1986, as supplemented, descriptive of 9% percent Treasury Bonds of 2006, hereafter referred to as Bonds, is hereby amended effective August 15, 1986. The following Section and Subsections in the original circular dated January 2, 1986, are hereby redesignated: from 6. to 7. from 6.2. to 7.2. Subsections 2.6. and 6.3. in the original circular are replaced by the Subsections 2.6. and 7.3. below and, in addition, the following Sections and Subsections are now included. The other terms and conditions remain unchanged. 2. Description of Securities 2.6. A book-entry Bond may be held in its fully constituted form or it may be divided into its separate Principal and Interest Components and maintained as such on the book-entry records of the Federal Reserve Banks, acting as Fiscal Agents of the United States. The provisions specifically applicable to the separation, maintenance, and transfer of Principal and Interest Components are set forth in Section 6 of this circular, Subsections 2.1. through 2.5. of this section are descriptive of Bonds in their fully constituted form; the description of the separate Principal and Interest Components is set forth in Section 6 of this circular, 6. Separability of Principal and Interest 6.1. Under the Treasury's STRIPS program (Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities), a book-entry Bond may be divided into its separate components and maintained as such on the book-entry records of the Federal Reserve Banks, acting as Fiscal Agents of the United States. The components of a Bond are: each future semiannual interest payment (hereafter referred to as an Interest Component) and the principal payment (hereafter referred to as the Principal Component). Each Interest Component and Principal Component shall have its own CUSIP number and designation, which are set forth in Attachment A hereto. 6.2. In order for a book-entry Bond to a be separated into the components described in Subsection 6.1., the par
AZS BA 1 Be BC 3 BO: BE 9 BE BG4
Treasury Interest (TINT) due: February 15, 1987. August 15, 1987 February 15, 1988. August 15, 1988 February 15, 1989. August 15, 1989 February 15, 1990. August 15, 1990 February 15, 1991 August 15, 1991 February 15, 1992. August 15, 1992 February 15, 1993. August 15, 1993 February 15, 1994. August 15, 1994 February 15, 1995. August 15, 1995 February 15, 1996. August 15, 1996 February 15, 1997. August 15, 1997 February 15, 1998. August 15, 1998 February 15, 1999. August 15, 1999 February 15, 2000 August 15, 2000 February 15, 2001. August 15, 2001 February 15, 2002. August 15, 2002 February 15, 2003 August 15, 2003 February 15, 2004. August 15, 2004 February 15, 2005 August 15, 2005 February 15, 2006...
(FR Doc. 86–17841 Filed 8-7-86; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 4810-40-M
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Types of Projects Proposals for partial funding of youth exchanges between American and German organizations for projects to be initiated between May and December 1987 are invited in the following categories: (1) Expansion of three-four week long high school classroom-toclassroom exchanges, including development of approrpiate materials on American society, government, and foreign policy; (2) thematic projects; (3) work project exchanges. Thematic exchanges should be for a minimum of four weeks for 10–16 students (and adult chaperone) aged 15-25, should be essentially one-community based, and should include orientations and debriefings for both German and American participants. Priority areas for thematic projects are journalism, the sciences, the arts, foreign policy, government (civic education), and the environment. Work projects or volunteer internships should be 6 weeks or longer. All American organizations should have identified German partners.
International Youth Exchange Initiative Invitation for Proposals for Youth Exchanges with the Federal Republic of Germany The United States Information Agency (USIA) announces a program of selective assistance through limited grant support to private not-for-profit organizations for programs that promote an expansion of international youth exchanges with the Federal Republic of Germany. This program has been approved by OMB Clearance No. 3116 0159 (expiration date 12-31-87). Organizations interested in such exchanges should request further information from the International Youth Exchange Staff at the address listed at the end of this announcement. Grant funding will generally be for 1218 month periods. All proposals will be judged on a competitive basis. Criteria for judging proposals are listed below.
Eligibility Academic, cultural, not-for-profit youth exchange and youth-serving organizations are eligible to apply. General guidelines for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs require that grants to organizations that have worked in the youth exchange field for less than four years may not exceed $60,000. Organizations must be capable of meeting the “Criteria for Teenager Exchange Visitor Programs" or "Criteria for Practical Trainees" which may be found in law libraries in the Code of Federal Regulation under 22 CFR Part 514 recently amended by notice published in the Federal Register (see 50 FR 31709, August 6, 1985) or may be obtained by writing to the Youth Exchange Staff, USIA, Washington, DC 20547.
comparison with other proposals submitted. Quality-Proposals are judged in terms of the program features which enhance the educational value of the exchange and povide for extensive interaction between exchange visitors and their host communities (e.g., homestays, joint work projects). Organizational Competency—The proposal should attest to the ability of the organization to field adequate resources to carry out a quality exchange. Priority is given to proposals from national organizations rather than local chapters. Self-management-The organization should demonstrate the ability to administer the project without extensive subcontracting to other not-for-profit or profit-making organizations. Where such arrangements exist, an organization should provide a copy of the service agreement. Length of Stay-Projects that provide for longer stays than the minimum required are frequently judged as more competitive than shorter exchanges. The following are ineligible for --Study for post-secondary academic credit or degree programs. -Travel/observation tours and "hotel hopping" delegations. -School tuition. -Stipends to host families. -Performing arts tours. -Projects designed to assist organizations start an affiliate in a foreign country. Organizations should demonstrate that such a base has been established before seeking grant funds to assist in expansion. --Projects requesting funding for development or purchase of orientation materials on the Federal Republic of Germany. - Projects designed to promote or advertise the general program of an organization. -Any project which is designed to lobby elected officials, promote politically partisan views, or whose aim is to promote religious activities. -Conferences, except as part of a program that meets other criteria listed (i.e., length of stay, project model). In the absence of special circumstances, the following should be understood to be of low priority for purposes of this competition: --Full program support (i.e. grant funding for all costs of the exchange).
Review Criteria Proposals will be judged on the extent to which projects address the following criteria: Justification--Reviewers look for realistic, quantifiable goals, and clear directions; the need for public funds to achieve the objectives must also be adequately justified. Networking-Certain projects involve matching the organizational experience and capability of an exchange group with the resources of a youth-serving organization or network with facilities, youth memberships, community access, etc. These proposals will be judged on their potential for forging these relationships and generating viable exchange activities. Cost-sharing—The proposal should detail and extent of financial and inkind support from participating organizations, schools, families, communities, counterpart German organizations, and government agencies. Special consideration will be given to efforts to assist economically disadvantaged youth and increase the ethnic and regional diversity of American participants in exchanges, and efforts to mainstream disabled youth into exchange activities. Reciprocity-The exchanges must be two way and as balanced (Germans/ Americans) as possible. Cost-effectiveness—The project should demonstrate greatest return for each federal dollar invested, and reasonable per capita cost in
Program Content All proposals must justify projects in terms of the desirable outcome of the grant. An organization should be prepared to describe its current situation, its goal and the steps that are necessary to accomplish this goal. Objectives should be quantified wherever possible (e.g. to increase the number of exchange participants from 50 to 100 by June 1988). The justification must specify why the organization needs partial U.S. Government funding to accomplish its objectives above and beyond the private sector funds its plans to devote to the project.
--Support for exchange activities already being carried out. U.S. participants in all grant-funded exchange projects must be American citizens or permanent residents as a matter of policy. Proposal Format Interested organizations should write or call the International Youth Exchange Staff for guidelines which specify what should be included in the narrative portion of the proposal, how budgets should be designed, and what
attachments ae required. The proposal should include a statement about the type of visa that will be used to bring the German youth to the U.S. Review Process Proposals (original and 12 copies) should be received in USIA no later than November 1, 1986. Following an initial screening for eligibility and completeness, proposals will be reviewed by a USIA advisory panel. Final decisions are made by the
Associate Director for Educational and Cultural Affairs. For further information contact the International Youth Exchange Staff (E/ YX), Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Information Agency, Washington, DC 20547 or call 202-485– 7299. Dated: July 31, 1986. Robert R. Gosende, Acting Associate Director, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. [FR Doc. 86–17871 Filed 8-7-88; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 8230-01-1
salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carreied forward from a previously announced meeting. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a recorded anouncement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting Dated: August 5, 1986. James McAfee, Associate Secretary of the Board. (FR Doc. 86-17935 Filed 8–5–86; 4:26 pm]
"FEDERAL REGISTER" CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUCEMENT: 51 FR 27307, July 30, 1986. PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 6,1986. CHANGES IN THE MEETING: Addition of the following closed item(s) to the meeting: Proposed Board comments to the Office of Management and Budget on draft legislation implementing the Report of the Task Group on Regulation of Financial Services.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, August 13, 1986. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE Dated: August 6, 1986. James McAfee, Associate Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 86–17982 Filed 8-6-86; 12:55 pm BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM BOARD OF GOVERNORS Page 6
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Topical Otic Drug Products for Overthe-Counter Human Use; Final Monograph
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug information on topical otic drug products that have come to the agency's attention. This final monograph is part of the ongoing review of OTC drug products conducted by FDA. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1987. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Gilbertson, Center for Drugs and Biologics (HFN-210), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-295-8000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 16, 1977 (42 FR 63556), FDA published, under § 330.10(a)(6) (21 CFR 330.10(a)(6)), an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a monograph for OTC topical otic drug products, together with the recommendations of the Advisory Review Panel on OTC Topical Analgesic, Antirheumatic, Otic, Burn, and Sunburn Prevention Treatment Drug Products, which was the advisory review panel responsible for evaluating data on the active ingredients in this drug class. Interested persons were invited to submit comments by March 16, 1978. Reply comments in response to comments filed in the initial comment period could be submitted by April 14, 1978. In accordance with $ 330.10(a)(10), the 4-62, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, after deletion of a small amount of trade secret information.
The agency's proposed regulation, in for introduction into interstate the form of a tentative final monograph, commerce. Manufacturers are for topical otic drug products was encouraged to comply voluntarily with published in the Federal Register of July the monograph at the earliest possible 9, 1982 (47 FR 30012). Interested persons date. were invited to file by September 7, In response to the proposed rule on 1982, written comments, objections, or OTC topical otic drug products, five requests for oral hearing before the drug manufacturers, one association for Commissioner of Food and Drugs drug manufacturers, and one college of regarding the proposal. Interested pharmacy submitted comments. Copies persons were invited to file comments of comments received are on public on the agency's economic impact display in the Dockets Management determination by November 9, 1982. Branch. Any additional information that New data could have been submitted has come to the agency's attention since until September 11, 1983. Final agency publication of the proposed rule is also action occurs with the publication of on public display in the Dockets Management Branch. In proceeding with this final monograph, the agency has considered CFR 330.10) now provide that any all comments and the changes in the procedural regulations. This final monograph applies only to resulted in a Category III classification, earwax removal aids. Active ingrediens and submission to FDA of the results of for claims for the prevention of that testing or any other data, must be swimmer's ear and treatment of waterdone during the OTC drug rulemaking clogged ears were submitted in process before the establishment of a comments to the tentative final final monograph. Accordingly, FDA is monograph. They were not included in no longer using the terms “Category I" the Panel's report, nor considered by the (generally recognized as safe and agency in the tentative final monograpé effective and not misbranded), on topical otic drug products. Therefcre "Category II" (not generally recognized in order to obtain public comment on as safe and effective or misbranded), these active ingredients and claims, the and "Category III” (available data are agency published a proposed rule to insufficient to classify as safe and amend the tentative final monograph fo effective, and further testing is required) OTC topical otic drug products to at the final monograph state, but is using include drugs used for the prevention ! instead the terms "monograph swimmer's ear and the treatment of conditions" (old Category I) and water-clogged ears in the Federal “nonmonograph conditions" (old Register of July 30, 1986 (51 FR 27366) I. The Agency's Conclusions on the Comments A. General Comments on Topical Otic 1. One comment contended that OTC as safe and effective and not drug monographs are interpretive, as misbranded (monograph conditions) will opposed to substantive, regulations. T: be effective 12 months after the date of comment referred to statements on this publication in the Federal Register. issue submitted earlier to other OTC Therefore, on or after August 10, 1987 no drug rulemaking proceedings. OTC drug product that is subject to the addressed this issue in monograph and that contains a paragraphs 85 through 91 of the nonmonograph condition, i.e., a preamble to the procedures for condition that would cause the drug to classification of OTC drug products, be not generally recognized as safe and published in the Federal Register of My effective or to be misbranded, may be 11, 1972 (37 FR 9464) and in paragraph : initially introduced or initially delivered of the preamble to the tentative final for introduction into interstate monograph for antacid drug products commerce unless it is the subject of an published in the Federal Register of approved application. Further, any OTC November 12, 1973 (38 FR 31260). FDA drug product subject to this monograph reaffirms the conclusions stated there that is repackaged or relabeled after the Subsequent court decisions have effective date of the monograph must be confirmed the agency's authority to in compliance with the monograph issue substantive regulations by regardless of the date the product was rulemaking. See, e.g., National initially introduced or initially delivered Nutritional Foods Association v. Page 7
EPA specifically requested comments ambiguous but that there may be, in rare That commenter recommended a 10-day concerning its proposed definition of circumstances, more than one country in limit consistent with domestic receiving country, recognizing the which something more than mere requirements. See 45 FR 86966 importance of the term as used in transportation and/or temporary storage (December 31, 1980). EPA, however, section 3017. Various alternatives incidental thereto could occur. In order does not feel it appropriate to impose a available for defining this term were to ensure that prior consent is obtained specific time limitation on storage noted in the proposal such as defining from countries, in which treatment and/ incidental to transportation where "receiving country" as: (1) All countries or long-term storage is to occur, the final exports are concerned. The time through which the waste passes; (2) the rule defines "receiving country" as the limitation in the rule referenced above first country the waste enters; or, (3) the foreign country to which a hazardous was reached based upon the general final destination of the waste. A number waste is sent for the purpose of nature of the transportation of comments were received on this treatment, storage or disposal (except domestically. International issue, many of which were in agreement for temporary storage incidental to transportation, on the other hand, may with the Agency's definition. However, transportation). The final rule also vary among foreign countries. EPA does some commenters recommended redefines "transit country" as any not have, at this time, information which expanding the definition of "receiving foreign country, other than a receiving would allow it to devise a generally country" to include any foreign country country, through which a hazardous applicable time limitation for storage the waste passes through en route to its waste is transported. These definitions incidental to transportation ultimate destination, i.e., "transit reflect the intent of the proposal to internationally. To ensure the proper country." exempt from the prior consent implementation of today's regulation, The primary concern of these requirement mere transportation through EPA will selectively review notifications commenters was that, under the or temporary storatge incidental to to ensure that countries designated by language of EPA's definition of receiving transportation with the added exporters as transit countries are not, in country, long-term storage or treatment recognition that, in rare circumstances, fact, receiving countries. If EPA could occur in a "transit country" there may be more than one "receiving determines that a country is improperly without its consent so long as the waste country." designated as a transit country, it will would subsequently be sent elsewhere. In redefining the term "receiving require that country's prior consent to Moreover, EPA would have no authority country,” EPA recognizes that there may the waste shipment. to prohibit long-term storage or be limits to an exporter's knowledge of In EPA's view, the final definitions of treatment in a transit country where the further shipment of U.S. generated receiving and transit countries and the transit country objected to the shipment. hazardous wastes from a treatment, decision to require notification of transit The scenario was presented where an storage or disposal facility (TSDF) in countries and both notification of and exporter intended to ship a waste first to one foreign country to another. Thus, prior consent from receiving countries is country "A" for treatment, then to EPA interprets the term "receiving consistent with the statute and best country "B" for multi-year storage while country" to include only those countries implements Congressional intent in the "ultimate" disposal facility in to which an exporters knows or can enacting section 3017. Congress did not country "C" was prepared to receive reasonably ascertain that the waste will define the term "receiving country" in and dispose of the waste. Under this be sent for treatment, storage or section 3017. The statutory language scenario, even if countries "A" and "B" disposal. EPA cannot hold exporters uses the term “receiving country" in the objected to the shipment, EPA would responsible for independent decisions singular form which arguably indicates have no authority to prohibit the by foreign TSDFs to further export a that Congress contemplated only one shipment to those countries. Concern hazardous waste. receiving country. On the other hand, was expressed that this would The primary exporter is responsible however, use of the singular version encourage unscrupulous exporters to for properly designating a country as a may simply reflect the assumption that evade consent requirements with sham transit country. If any uncertainty arises exports commonly would involve only long-term treatment and storage. In regarding whether certain "storage" one receiving country. The statutory addition, the dangers involved in storing occurring in a foreign country is "storage language also provides for notification and/or treating the waste were incidental to transportation," primary of the treatment, storage or disposal suggested to be of equal concern as exporters should refer, for guidance, to facility abroad to which the waste will those involved in the ultimate disposal the preamble to the rule clarifying when be sent. This language arguably of the waste. a transporter handling shipments of indicates that Congress contemplated EPA is also concerned about long- hazardous waste domestically is notification of any country in which term storage and/or treatment of U.S. required to obtain a storage permit. See "treatment," storage" or disposal" waste in a foreign country. In fact, EPA's 45 FR 86966 (December 31, 1980). Thus, occurs. However, this notification proposal explained that its intent was to in determining whether a country is a requirement is qualified by the term require consent from the “ultimate receiving country or a transit country, "ultimate" treatment, storage or disposal destination" of the waste in contrast to the factors to be considered are the facility. This arguably indicates that countries where mere transportation nature of the handling of the waste in "receiving country" encompasses only through or temporary storage incidental such country and the length of time the the final destination of the waste with to transportation was to occur. waste remains in such country. EPA is the phrase "treatment, storage or The proposal, however, envisioned not at this time, however, placing a time disposal facility" being used simply as that although there may be several limit on the length of time considered the common phrase for identifying the transit countries involved, there would "temporary storage incidental to hazardous waste facility which is the be only one "ultimate destination" of the transportation." One of the commenters "ultimate" destination. To complicate waste. The scenarios presented by suggesting a broader definition of matters further, however, "ultimate" commenters have brought to EPA's receiving country also recognized the storage is a contradiction in terms since attention that not only was EPA's need for an exception for temporary EPA has defined "storage" as the proposed regulatory language storage incidental to transportation. holding of hazardous waste for a Page 8
materials, nevertheless, should keep in with other wastes for which manifests wastes to the list of hazardous wastes, Exporters "must keep whatever records or other regulatory changes, additional or other mears of substantiating their wastes become subject to manifesting, claims that they are not managing a exporters of such waste must also solid waste because of the way the comply with the requirements material is to be recycled." 50 FR at 642– promulgated in today's rule. 643. This might include, for example, a (2) Comments Suggesting that EPA description of the foreign recycling Broaden the Applicability of section facility, evidence that the recycling 3017. Some commenters supported the facility is licensed or otherwise qualified Agency's proposal to exempt from the by the foreign jurisdiction, and/or a export requirements those wastes that are presently exempted from manifest copy of the contract indicating the terms of the transaction. See also United requirements. One commenter, however, objected to this scheme suggesting that States v. Hayes International Corp., 786 the language of section 3017 (which F.2d 1499, (11th Cir. 1986) (in a states that "... no person shall export prosecution under Section 3008(d)(1) of any hazardous waste identified or listed RCRA for the knowing transportation of under this subtitle" unless the waste to an unpermitted facility, the requirements of section 3017 are met) court rejected defendant's claim that it clearly indicates Congressional intent to believed the hazardous waste at issue subject all hazardous wastes to the was being recycled, where evidence indicated the lack of a good faith belief). export requirements of section 3017. EPA does not agree that Congress EPA is aware of evidence that certain intended to require notification and materials that have been exported consent for all hazardous wastes in ostensibly for recycling were actually view of the statutory language itself and examples of sham recycling. Improper the established domestic RCRA disposal was intended and in fact program. occurred. For example, a 41-count EPA's regulatory definition of indictment charging conspiracy, mail “hazardous waste" is a broad one. It fraud, and utilization of false statements includes all solid wastes which are was returned on April 17, 1986, by a listed hazardous wastes or which federal grand jury sitting in the Southern exhibit the characteristic of ignitability, District of California against four corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity. officers and owners of two corporations Generally, hazardous wastes (whether that were allegedly, among other things, listed or characteristic) are subject to claiming to be recycling waste when in the generally applicable regulations fact they knew it was being illegally governing their generation, disposed of in Mexico. transportation, treatment, storage and Any notification, consent or annual disposal. See 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, 264 report based on false representations is and 265. However, there are a very invalid. Thus, persons exporting small number of "hazardous wastes" which EPA, for one reason or another, hazardous waste are subject to civil and criminal enforcement actions. These has totally exempted from domestic actions are based upon the fact that the regulation. These include, for example, exporter did not comply with applicable residues under certain specified amounts in empty containers and scrap notification, consent and/or annual metal (if it demonstrates a characteristic report requirements. of hazardous waste) when sent for Another extremely small group of recycling. 40 CFR 261.7, 261.6(a)(3)(iv). In hazardous secondary materials, EPA's view, Congress could not have although considered hazardous wastes, intended to regulate for export those are either fully exempt or partially "hazardous wastes" which EPA does exempt from regulation by EPA not regulate domestically. It is highly domestically. See 40 CFR 261.6(a)(2) and unlikely that Congress would have been (3) (50 FR 614, 665 (January 4, 1985)). more concerned about wastes exported Exporters of such secondary materials than wastes in its own backyard. For should keep in mind that the burden of example, as Representative Mikulski, proof is also on the exporter to the sponsor of section 3017, stated: demonstrate that such waste falls within Our own country will have safeguards from one of these exemptions. The
countries. 129 Cong. Rec. H8163 (daily ed. October 8, 1983) (emphasis added). An "equally firm" stand on exports would not require regulation of a waste for export not regulated domestically. Nor does EPA agree that section 3017 to a receiving country, section 3017 includes a requirement that EPA, in conjunction with the Department of State, include "a description of the Federal regulations which would apply to the treatment, storage and disposal of the hazardous waste in the United States." These requirements evidence an intent on Congress' part to encompass something less than "all hazardous wastes" since where a waste is not regulated domestically, consent could not be attached to the manifest nor would there be any regulations for EPA to describe which govern the domestic treatment, storage or disposal of such wastes. Thus, EPA does not believe that Congress mandated notifying a foreign country of a "hazard" the United States itself does not believe of sufficient concern to regulate domestically. The question of the reach of section 3017 also arises with respect to certain hazardous wastes which are regulated minimally domestically, although excluded from the generally applicable requirements placed on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. These include, for example, samples for testing and wastes generated by small quantity generators generating less than 100 kg/ mo of hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.4(d); 261.5 FR at 10174 (March 24, 1986).2 EPA does not believe that application of the export requirements was intended for those wastes excluded from the generally applicable manifesting requirement even though some de minimus requirements are imposed domestically. In EPA's view, the function served by the manifest domestically is similar to the function served by the notification and consent internationally. The manifest notifies persons receiving the waste or handling the waste of the nature of the materials Page 9
proposed except in one respect. One the additional requirements that the commenter stated that, by exempting transporter deliver a copy of the generators who file annual reports from manifest to a U.S. Customs official at the reporting exports on the biennial report point the waste leaves the United States form, EPA cannot exempt exporters and that the transporter refuse to accept from the new HSWA waste hazardous waste for export if he knows minimization requirements of section it does not conform to the 3002(a)(6) (C) and (D). EPA does not Acknowledgment of Consent. believe that exporters will be exempt One further change is also being made from such requirements in most cases in the transporter requirements. This based upon the assumption that, pertains to exports by rail. In drafting generally, an exporter will not only the proposed rule. EPA recognized that export waste but also will ship some existing domestic regulations for wastes off-site for treatment, storage or shipments by rail do not require that the disposal domestically. Accordingly, the manifest travel with the waste shipment requirements of section 3002(a)(6) (C) nor do they require that intermediate and (D) will be met for all wastes by rail transporters sign the manifest. See filing the biennial report as required by 40 CFR 263.21(d). Instead, a shipping 40 CFR 262.41. Nevertheless, to cover paper is required to accompany the the annual circumstance where a person waste and the manifest must be sent to exports all his hazardous wastes, the the next non-rail transporter, the TSDF, final rule includes a requirement that or, for exports, the last rail transporter unless provided pursuant to 40 CFR designated to handle the waste in the 261.41, an exporter must include in the United States. These special annual report submitted in even requirements were imposed on rail numbered years: (1) A description of the efforts undertaken during the year to transporters due to the special nature of the railroad industry in recognition that reduce the volume and toxicity of waste railroads have sophisticated generated; and (2) a description of the computerized tracking information changes in volume and toxicity of waste systems. If the manifest system were actually achieved during the year in applied to the rail system without comparison to previous years to the adjustment, normal operating practices extent such information is available for would be so disrupted as to effectively years prior to 1984. Small quantity generators generating less than 1,000 kg/ prevent the use of this method of transportation. See 45 FR 86970, 86971 mo are exempt from this requirement consistent with 40 CFR 262.44 (See 51 FR (December 31, 1980). In the rail system, 10146, 10176 (March 24, 1986)). Exporters shipping papers are left with railcars at of spent industrial ethyl alcohol for interchange points to be picked up by the transferee railroad. Thus, no face-toreclamation are also exempt since this requirement does not otherwise apply to face contact occurs and the normal such wastes. manifest system is unworkable. With regard to the proposed In keeping with the existing system recordkeeping and exception reporting for railroads, EPA's proposed export requirements, EPA received no provisions required the significant comments on these Acknowledgment of Consent to be provisions. Accordingly, EPA is attached to the shipping paper in lieu of retaining $ $ 262.55 and 262.57 as the manifest. In commenting on the proposed for the reasons set forth in the proposal, the Association of American preamble to the proposed rule. Railroads, brought to EPA's attention that the rail industry is now moving G. Transporter Responsibilities toward a system where there will be no The March 13, 1986 proposal amended exchange of papers between rail § 263.20 to prohibit a transporter from carriers. Each rail carrier will have its accepting waste from an exporter own shipping paper issued through a unless, in addition to a manifest, an EPA computerized system and therefore not Acknowledgment of Consent was even an exchange of a shipping paper attached to the manifest. EPA also will occur by leaving the shipping paper proposed to amend this section to with the rail car. Instead, each rail require transporters to ensure that an carrier operator would carry its own EPA Acknowledgment of Consent shipping paper for the shipment. In the accompanied the waste en route. No rail industry's view, the proposed export changes were proposed regarding other requirements represented a step requirements of Part 263 applicable to backward since the requirement that the transporters transporting waste for Acknowledgment of Consent be export. See 40 CFR 263.20(8), 263.21, attached to the shipping paper would 263.22(d). As discussed in Section III.B. require that papers be passed from rail of this preamble, EPA is retaining these carrier to rail carrier and the new requirements as proposed and is adding "paperless" exchange would be
unworkable. This commenter, therefore, suggested that the Acknowledgment of Consent be attached to the manifest which is forwarded ahead to the last rail transporter to carry waste in the U.S. EPA did not intend to prevent or discourage the use of rail transportation through the export requirements. Nor does EPA believe that this was Congress' intent. In fact, EPA's intent in the proposal was to accommodate the special circumstances of the rail industry while ensuring that the purpose and intent of section 3017 was met. However, while EPA understands that attachment to a shipping paper under the new rail system may not be workable, it is difficult to understand why a copy of the Acknowledgment of Consent cannot be left in the rail car with the shipment. This would not require any face-to-face contact since the document would simply travel with the rail car as it is passed from one railroad to another. Accordingly, the final rule provides that the Acknowledgment of Consent simply accompany the waste shipment for shipments by rail and need not be attached to the shipping paper. Consistent with section 3017, this will allow the consent to accompany the waste shipment." EPA invites further comment on this issue and will consider further modification to this requirement once the new "paperless" rail system is implemented if it can be shown that this requirement essentially prohibits exports by rail. H. Small Quantity Generators As previously discussed in Section III.B.4 of this preamble, EPA proposed to define an exporter as the person required to prepare the manifest pursuant to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart B for a shipment of hazardous waste that specifies a treatment, storage, or disposal facility in the receiving country to which the waste will be sent. Under the rules existing at the time of the March 13, 1986 proposal, generators of less than 1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste in a calendar month (i.e., small quantity generators) were not subject to Subpart B of Part 262 (or any other Part 262–266 or 270 regulations), provided Page 10
3017(b) also sets forth the requirement did not specifically provide otherwise under section 3017, the Administrator retains the authority to shorten this period. EPA believes a shorter effective date Assuming, however, that section 3010(b) is not controlling, EPA believes that its scheme for effectuation of these rules is also authorized by section 3017 itself. Section 3017 specifies several dates by which certain acts should occur: 24 months for full statutory implementation; 12 months for implementation of the notification requirements of subsection (c); 12 months for enactment of regulations to implement the section; and, 180 days before the effective date of the regulations. Exactly how these time frames were intended to work together is unclear. For example, regulations need not be promulgated for 12 months but notification requirements were required to go into effect in 12 months. At the same time, 180 days was specified as the time between promulgation and effectuation of regulations. The various time frames established in section 3017 do not, on their face, logically interrelate, nor is it apparent which time frame would ? Section 3017(a) requires compliance with export requirements 24 months after enactment of HSWA (November 8, 1986).
control if any slippage were to occur. In Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a Regulatory view of the lack of clarity of the Flexibility Analysis must be performed statutory language in this respect, it is if the regulatory requirements have a EPA's position that the time for full significant impact on a substantial implementation of section 3017 must number of small entities. No Regulatory take precedence over the number of Flexibility Analysis is required where days between the promulgation date the head of an agency certifies that the and effective date of the implementing rule will not have a significant economic notes. This scheme comports with impact on a substantial number of small Congressional intent that this section go entities. into effect by November 8, 1986, and Since 1980, generators exporting that regulations be in place by that time. hazardous waste have been required by Where EPA is unable to satisfy both of these statutory time frames, the EPA to notify the Administrator four November 8, 1986, deadline for weeks before the initial shipment of implementing section 3017 is more hazardous waste to each country in important than the number of days each calendar year. Based upon an between promulgation of the rule and its analysis of those notifications received, effective date. the Agency has determined that no small entitles have filed notifications of VI. Economic, Environmental and intent to export. EPA does not anticipate Regulatory Impacts that the universe of generators exporting A. Impact on Small Quantity Generators hazardous waste will significantly Because of the limited number of change in the future. Therefore, this rule generators of between 100-1000 kg/mo is not expected to have a significant EPA expects will export hazardous economic impact on a substantial waste, the impact on small quantity number of small entities and does not generators should be minimal. require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Therefore, pursuant to 5 USC B. Executive Order 12291-Regulatory 8601(b), I certify that this regulation will Impact not have a significant economic impact Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193, on a substantial number of small February 9, 1981) requires that a entities. List of Subjects Administrative practice and information, Hazardous waste, Liquids less than $100 million per year, and has in landsfills. no significant adverse economic effects. 40 CFR Part 261 While EPA recognizes that some companies may experience economic Intergovernmental relations, dislocation if there are significant delays Hazardous materials, Waste treatment in processing notifications and consents, and disposal, Recycling. the Agency believes that judicious 40 CFR Part 262 planning on the part of these companies could eliminate or lessen the impact of Hazardous material transportation, such delays, if any. As stated in the Hazardous waste, Imports, Exports, preamble to the proposed rule (51 FR Labeling, Packaging and containers, 10146, March 13, 1986), EPA will process Reporting and recordkeeping all notifications and written consents as requirements, Waste minimization. expeditiously as possible. 40 CFR Part 263 C. Paperwork Reduction Act Hazardous material transportation, The information collection requirements in this rule have been Waste treatment and disposal. 40 CFR Part 271 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business control number 2050-0035. information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis lands, Intergovernmental relations, Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping Page 11
$ 262.54 Special manifest requirements. A primary exporter must comply with the manifest requirements of 40 CFR 262.20–262.23 except that: (a) In lieu of the name, site address and EPA ID number of the designated permitted facility, the primary exporter must enter the name and site address of the consignee; (b) In lieu of the name, site address and EPA ID number of a permitted alternate facility, the primary exporter may enter the name and site address of any alternate consignee. (c) In Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information, the primary exporter must identify the point of departure from the United States; (d) The following statement must be added to the end of the first sentence of the certification set forth in Item 16 of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Form: “and conforms to the terms of the attached EPA Acknowledgment of Consent": (e) In lieu of the requirements of $ 2.21, the primary exporter must obtain the manifest form from the primary exporter's State if that State supplies the manifest form and requires its use. If the primary exporter's State does not supply the manifest form, the primary exporter may obtain a manifest form from any source. (1) The primary exporter must require the consignee to confirm in writing the delivery of the hazardous waste to that facility and to describe any significant discrepancies (as defined in 40 CFR 264.72(a)) between the manifest and the shipment. A copy of the manifest signed by such facility may be used to confirm delivery of the hazardous waste. (g) In lieu of the requirements of § 262.20(d), where a shipment cannot be delivered for any reason to the designated or alternate consignee, the primary exporter must: (1) Renotify EPA of a change in the conditions of the original notification to allow shipment to a new consignee in accordance with § 262.53(c) and obtain an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent prior to delivery; or (2) Instruct the transporter to return the waste to the primary exporter in the United States or designate another facility within the United States; and (3) Instruct the transporter to revise the manifest in accordance with the primary exporter's instructions. (h) The primary exporter must attach a copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to the shipment to the manifest which must accompany the hazardous waste shipment. For exports by rail or water (bulk shipment), the primary exporter must provide the transporter with an EPA Acknowledgment of
Consent which must accompany the pursuant to $ 262.41, in even numbered undertaken during the year to reduce the (ii) a description of the changes in (i) The primary exporter shall provide volume and toxicity of waste actually the transporter with an additional copy achieved during the year in comparison of the manifest for delivery to the U.S. Customs official at the point the to previous years to the extent such information is available for years prior hazardous waste leaves the United to 1984. States in accordance with $ 263.2018)(4). (6) A certification signed by the (Approved by the Office of Management and primary exporter which states: Budget under control number 2050-0035) I certify under penalty of law that I have 8 262.55 Exception reports. personally examined and am familiar with In lieu of the requirements of § 262.42, the information submitted in this and all a primary exporter must file an attached documents, and that based on my exception report with the Administrator inquiry of those individuals immediately rsponsible for obtaining the information, I (a) He has not received a copy of the believe that the submitted information is true, manifest signed by the transporter accurate, and complete. I am aware that there stating the date and place of departure are significant penalties for submitting false from the United States within forty-five information including the possibility of fine (45) days from the date it was accepted and imprisonment. by the initial transporter; (b) Reports shall be sent to the following address: Office of International Activities (A(b) Within ninety (90) days from the date the waste was accepted by the 106), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 initial transporter, the primary exporter M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. has not received written confirmation (Approved by the Office of Management and from the consignee that the hazardous Budget under control number 2050-0035) waste was received; § 262.57 Recordkeeping. (a) For all exports a primary exporter must: (1) Keep a copy of each notification of 2050-0035) intent to export for a period of at least three years from the date the hazardous $ 262.56 Annual reports. waste was accepted by the initial (a) Primary exporters of hazardous transporter; waste shall file with the Administrator (2) Keep a copy of each EPA no later than March 1 of each year, a Acknowledgment of Consent for a report summarizing the types, quantities, period of at least three years from the frequency, and ultimate destination of date the hazardous waste was accepted all hazardous waste exported during the by the initial transporter; previous calendar year. Such reports (3) Keep a copy of each confirmation shall include the following: of delivery of the hazardous waste from (1) The EPA identification number, the consignee for at least three years name, and mailing and site address of from the date the hazardous waste was the exporter; accepted by the initial transporter; and (2) The calendar year covered by the (4) Keep a copy of each annual report report; (3) The name and site address of each for a period of at least three years from the due date of the report. consignee; (4) By consignee, for each hazardous (b) The periods of retention referred to waste exported, a description of the in this section are extended hazardous waste, the EPA hazardous automatically during the course of any waste number (from 40 CFR Part 261, unresolved enforcement action Subpart C or D), DOT hazard class, the regarding the regulated activity or as name and US EPA ID number (where requested by the Administrator. applicable) for each transporter used, (Approved by the Office of Management and the total amount of waste shipped and Budget under control number 2050-0035) number of shipments pursuant to each notification; 8 262.58 International agreements. (5) Except for hazardous waste ((Reserved)] produced by exporters of greater than 9. Title 40 CFR Part 262 is amended by 100 kg but less than 1000 kg in a adding new Subpart F to read as calendar month, unless provided Page 12
For those of you who must keep informed about Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders, there is a convenient reference source that will make researching these documents much easier. Arranged by subject matter, this edition of the Codification contains proclamations and Executive orders that were issued or amended during the period January 20, 1961, through January 20,1985, and which have a continuing effect on the public. For those documents that have been affected by other proclamations or Executive orders, the codified text presents the amended version. Therefore, a reader can use the codification to determine the latest text of a document without having to "reconstruct” it through extensive research. Special features include a comprehensive index and a table listing each proclamation and Executive order issued during the 1961-1985 period— along with any amendments-an indication of its current status, and, where applicable, its location in this volume. Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration Order from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
MAIL ORDER FORM To: Charge orders may be telephoned to the GPO order Deposit Account No. 1-O desk at (202)783-3238 from 8:00a.m. to 4:00p.m. Credit Card Orders Only eastern time, Monday-Friday master charge Total charges $ Fill in the boxes below: VISA (except holidays). Credit Card No. *6105 Expiration Date Master Charge Month/Year Interbank No. MID
Please send me copies of the Codification of Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders at $20.00 per copy. Stock No. 022-022-00110-0 Page 13
Tobacco Inspection; Grade Standards SUMMARY: This action modifies on an for Flue-Cured Tobacco; Correction interim basis the plant location adjustments to prices under the Texas, AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service. Greater Kansas City, Southwest Plains and Central Arkansas milk orders based ACTION: Final rule; correction. on industry proposals considered at a public hearing held March 4-7, 1986. The SUMMARY: In FR Doc. 86–15644, location adjustment provisions of the beginning on page 25027, in the issue of four orders are amended to conform Thursday, July 10, 1986, concerning grade prices under such orders with the higher standards for flue-cured tobacco, the Class I differentials mandated by the section number in amendment 6 and the Food Security Act of 1985. Also, certain section heading was incorrectly changes are adopted to assure the designated. This document corrects proper intra-market alignment of prices those designations. under the orders. More than the necessary two-thirds of the producers in No changes for the Fort Smith, hearing record. Amendments to the Memphis, Tennessee order were Corrections considered at the hearing also. A prior FR Doc. 86–15644 is corrected as emergency final decision and an amended order to deal with the follows: proposed changes for this market were A. On page 25027, the language in issued separately. amendment 6 which added § 29.1048 is This hearing proceeding reopened an corrected to read as follows: earlier proceeding for the Southwest Plains and Fort Smith, Arkansas orders “6. A new 8 29.1049 is added to read to consider a merger of the two orders as follows:". plus an expansion of the merged B. The section number which now marketing area to include presently reads “29.1048" in the section heading unregulated territory in southwest is correctly designated as “$ 29.1049". Missouri and northwest Arkansas. The Dated: July 31, 1986. earlier proceeding was reopened for the limited purpose of receiving evidence William T. Manley, with respect to the economic and Deputy Administrator, Marketing Programs. marketing conditions which relate to the (FR Doc. 86–17917 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am) location adjustment provisions of the BILLING CODE 3410-02-M merged and expanded Southwest Plains
marketing area. A separate decision to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John F. Borovies, Marketing Specialist, Dairy Division, Agricultural MarketingService, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 447-2089. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12291. Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing: Issued February 14, 1986; published February 21, 1986 (51 FR 6250) Emergency Final Decision: Issued May 8, 1986; published May 16, 1986 (51 FR 17982). Final Order: Issued June 4, 1986; published June 10, 1986 (51 FR 20955). Tentative Decision: Issued July 9, 1986; published July 15, 1986 (51 FR 25539) Findings and Determinations The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the aforesaid orders were first issued and when they were amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein. (a) Findings upon the basis of the hearing record. Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR Part 900), a public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreements and to the orders regulating the handling of milk in the respective marketing areas. Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, it is found that: (1) The said orders as hereby amended on an interim basis, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act; Page 14
Plus 15 cents. Plus 18 cents. Plus 20 cents
Zone !
Plus 30 cents. Plus 54 cents. Plus 42 cents.
Plus 66 cents, Plus 75 cents.
(8) For a plant located in the State of Arkansas, the minus adjustment shall be the difference between the applicable Class I price effective at such plant location under the Central Arkansas order (Part 1108) and the Class I price specified in § 1126.50(a). (9) For a plant located in the State of Louisiana, no adjustment shall apply. (10) For a plant located outside the designated pricing areas described in paragraphs (a) (1) through (9) of this section, the adjustment shall be minus 2.2 cents per hundredweight for each 10 miles or fraction thereof that such plant is located from the City Hall in Dallas, Texas (based on the shortest hardsurfaced highway distance as determined by the market administrator).
(ii) In any county lying north of any price specified in $1126.50(a) shall be county specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of adjusted by the amount stated in this section, the adjustment shall be paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this minus 22 cents; and section for the location of such plant: (iii) In any county lying south of any (1) For a plant located within one of county specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the zones set forth in $1126.2, the this section, the adjustment shall be plus adjustment shall be as follows: 31 cents. (2) For a plant located in the State of Adjustment per Oklahoma or Tennessee, no adjustment hundredweight shall apply. No adjustment (3) For a plant located in the Texas county of Bowie or Cass, the adjustment No adjustment. shall be plus 31 cents. (4) For a plant located in the State of No adjustment Louisiana, Mississippi or Texas (except the counties of Bowie and Cass), the adjustment shall be plus 2.1 cents per Plus 53 cents. hundredweight for each 10 miles or fraction thereof (rounded to the nearest cent) that such plant is located from the nearer of the County Courthouse in (2) For a plant located in the Texas Forrest City, Arkansas, or the State Panhandle marketing area or in Capitol in Little Rock, Arkansas. (based Lipscomb County, Texas, the minus on the shortest, hard-surfaced highway adjustment shall be the difference distance as determined by the market between the applicable Class I price administrator). effective at such plant location under (5) For a plant located in any of the the Texas Panhandle order (Part 1132) following Missouri counties, the and the Class I price specified in adjustment shall be minus 58 cents. $ 1126.50(a). Barry McDonald (3) For a plant located in the Lubbock- Cedar Ozark Plainview, Texas, marketing area or in Christian Polk Parmer County, Texas, the minus Dade Pulaski Dallas Stone adjustment shall be the difference Douglas Taney between the applicable Class I price Greene effective at such plant location under Howell Webster the Lubbock-Plainview, Texas order Laclede Wright Lawrence (Part 1120) and the Class I price specified in $1126.50(a). (6) For a plant located outside the (4) For a plant located in Bowie or designated pricing areas specified in Cass County, Texas, the adjustment paragraphs (a) (1) through (5) of this shall be minus 20 cents. section, the adjustment shall be minus (5) For a plant located in the State of 2.1 cents per hundredweight for each 10 Texas and outside the designated miles or fraction thereof (rounded to the pricing areas described in paragraphs nearest cent) that such plant is located (a) (1) through (9) of this section, the from the nearer of the County adjustment shall be the adjustment Courthouse in Forrest City, Arkansas, or applicable at the nearer of Corpus the State Capitol in Little Rock, Christi, San Angelo, or San Antonio, Arkansas (based on the shortest hard Texas. surfaced highway distance as (6) For a plant located in the Rio Grande Valley marketing area or the shall be the difference between the PART 1126-MILK IN THE TEXAS applicable Class I price effective at such MARKETING AREA plant location under the Rio Grande 1. In $1126.52, paragraph (a) is revised Valley order (Part 1138) and the Class I to read as follows: price specified in 1126.50(a). (7) For a plant located in the $ 1126.52 Plant location adjustments for Southwest Plains marketing area or in handlers. the Missouri counties listed below, the (a) For milk received at a plant from minus adjustment shall be the difference producers or a handler described in between the applicable Class I price § 1126.9(c) and which is classified as effective at such plant location under Class I milk without movement in bulk the Southwest Plains order (Part 1106) form to a pool distributing plant at and the Class I price specified in which a higher Class I price applies, the $ 1126.50(a).
PART 1138-MILK IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY MARKETING AREA
Note.---No amendatory action taken. Effective date: September 1, 1986. Signed at Washington, DC, on August 5, 1986. Karen K. Darling, Deputy Assistant Secretary. Marketing and Inspection Services. [FR Doc. 86–17962 Filed 8-8-86: 8:45 am]
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD
Responsibility of Bank Directors In FR Doc. 86–17635 beginning on page 28221 in the issue of Wednesday, August 6, 1986, make the following corrections:
$ 522.62 (Corrected] On page 28222, in the second column. "552" should read "522" in amendatory instructions 4 and 5 and in the section heading immediately following. BILLING CODE 1505-01-M Page 15
On July 10, 1985, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration issued a final rule in the Federal Register temporarily placing MPPP and PEPAP into Schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the emergency scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). This action which became effective on August 12, 1985 was based on a finding by the Administrator that the emergency scheduling of MPPP and PEPAP was necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Section 201(h)(2) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) provides that the emergency scheduling of a substance expires at the end of one year from the effective date of the order. However, if a rulemaking proceeding to schedule the substance has been initiated pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1)), the temporary scheduling may be extended for up to six months. Under this provision, the temporary scheduling of MPPP and PEPAP which is due to expire on August 12, 1986 will be extended until February 12, 1987 or until the date on which a final rule, published as a result of the formal rulemaking proceeding, is effective, whichever occurs first. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2) and since proceedings have been initiated in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to schedule MPPP and PEPAP, the Administrator hereby orders that the temporary scheduling of MPPP and PEPAP be extended to February 12, 1987 or until the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding, whichever occurs first. Pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, section 605(b), the Administrator certifies that the extended scheduling of MPPP and PEPAP in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act will have no impact upon small businesses or other entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). The substances MPPP and PEPAP have no legitimate use or manufacturer in the United States. It has been determined that the Dated: August 5, 1986. John C. Lawn, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. 86–17948 Filed 8-8-86: 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND nursing home and intermediate care URBAN DEVELOPMENT facility or a board and care home. . . (See 12 U.S.C. 1715w[d]). The Secretary Office of the Assistant Secretary for may insure such mortgages "upon such Housing-Federal Housing terms and conditions as he may Commissioner prescribe. . . ." (See 12 U.S.C. 1715w[c]). 24 CFR Part 200 Similarly, section 242 and Title XI of the National Housing Act authorize the (Docket No. R-86-1219; FR-1776) Secretary to insure mortgages covering hospitals and group practice facilities. Changes to the Minimum Property Such mortgages may be insured under Standards (MPS) for Care-Type such terms and conditions as the Housing Secretary may prescribe (See 12 U.S.C. AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 17152-7, 12 U.S.C. 1749aaa-1749aaa-5). Secretary for Housing - Federal Housing Accordingly, the Secretary prescribed Commissioner, HUD. standards for determining the ACTION: Final rule. acceptability of care-type housing for purposes of mortgage insurance by SUMMARY: This final rule changes the issuing the Minimum Property Standards basic structure of HUD's Minimum (MPS) for Care-Type Housing. The MPS Property Standards for Care-Type for Care-Type Housing were published Housing. HUD Handbook 4920.1, which as HUD Handbook 4920.1, and were contained the MPS for such structures, incorporated into the Department's has been withdrawn. Instead, the regulations by authority of 24 CFR Department will rely on local or State 200.927. codes that a HUD Field Office has On February 15, 1985, the Department verified as being comparable to one of published at 50 FR 6359 a proposed rule the national model codes, or on the to change the basic structure of the MPS. provisions of nationally recognized That rule proposed that the Department model building codes. The requirements eliminate HUD Handbook 4920.1, which in HUD Handbook 4910.1, "Minimum contains the MPS for care-type housing. Property Standards for Multifamily and instead rely upon acceptable local Housing" which has now been retitled "Minimum Property Standards for or State codes or designated nationally recognized model building codes to Housing", will now apply to care-type housing also, and provide requirements provide the health and safety criteria for that are unlikely to be contained in care-type housing. The rule also local, State or model codes. These proposed that the Department apply the changes will preserve the quality of requirements of the MPS for Multifamily care-type housing and protect the Housing in HUD Handbook 4910.1 to Department's insurance fund while care-type housing as well. Finally, the simplifying construction requirements. rule proposed to revise the MPS in This rule also deletes certain Handbook 4910.1 to reflect the inclusion referenced standards from the MPS, and of care-type housing and appropriate references the Uniform Federal standards that are referenced in the Accessibility Standards as the design MPS and in Appendix A of 24 CFR Part and construction criteria for 200. handicapped persons. The Department has evaluated these EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 1986. proposed changes in light of the recent FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: amendment to section 526 of the Mark W. Holman, Manufactured National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1735f-4 Housing and Construction Standards by section 405 of the Housing and Division, Room 9152, Department of Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983, Pub. Housing and Urban Development, 451 L. 98–181, 97 Stat. 1153 (1983). As 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410 amended, section 526(b) permits the 8000, telephone (202) 755-6590. [This is Secretary to require, with respect to not a toll-free number.) health and safety, that properties other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section than manufactured homes comply with 232 of the National Housing Act, 12 one of the nationally recognized model U.S.C. 1715w, as amended by section building codes, or with a State or local 437 of the Housing and Urban-Rural building code based on one of the Recovery Act of 1983, Pub. L. 98–181, 97 nationally recognized model building Stat. 1153, 1222, authorizes the Secretary codes or their equivalent." The of Housing and Urban Development to Secretary is "responsible for insure any mortgage which covers a new determining the comparability of the or rehabilitated nursing home or State and local codes to such model intermediate care facility or combined codes. ..." Page 16
agent). HUD believed that this governing the sale and assignment of programs, or otherwise may be unaware amendment would encourage the coinsured mortgages under parts 251 of their risk of loss under the addition of capital into the mortgage and 255 are similar to and based upon coinsurance program. markets by permitting insured the procedures in existing $ 207.261, and To alert these investors to their mortgagees to more freely transfer since the amendment of Parts 251 and potential risk, the coinsurance interests in insured mortgages. 255 procedures will also further the regulations require that the instrument Interested parties were invited to announced purpose of adding capital to under which the interest in the submit comments by December 10, 1984. the mortgage market, the Department coinsured mortgage is transferred HUD received four comments, all of has concluded that the suggested (including such documents as the which indicated support for the changes are within the scope of this declaration of trust, participation proposed rule. However, based on rulemaking and should be incorporated agreement and participation certifiate) commenters' suggested changes, the in this final rule. disclose: (1) That the coinsured lender final rule differs from the proposed rule The extension of this rule to coinsured has assumed a specified portion of the in some material respects, as discussed mortgages should not have a significant risk of loss on the insured mortgage or below. detrimental impact on any party since pool or mortgages; (2) whether the Transfer Under Participation the requirements for transfer are transfer will shift any portion of this risk Agreements or Arrangements generally less stringent than provided of loss to the holder of the partial under existing rules. Moreover, in the interest; and (3) that no FHAThe proposed rule would apply to past HUD has approved, on a case-by- administered insurance fund will pay transfers made through mortgage case basis, the transfer of partial benefits to protect against any risk of participation certificates. Transfers of interests in coinsured mortgages through loss assumed by the coinsured lender interests under other forms of mortgage participation agreements that and transferred to any holder of the participation agreements or do not meet the stated requirements of partial interest. arrangements would be subject to the § 251.106 or 8 255.106. HUD has found more rigorous requirements of 24 CFR that its interests and the interests of the Protection of GNMA interests 207.261(e). While the commenters mortgagor and the holders of the partial The final rule contains two clarifying generally supported the addition of new interests can be adequately protected by changes affecting the Government paragraph (f), some urged the the restrictions included in this National Mortgage Association Department to make similar changes to amendment to $ 207.261, as discussed (GNMA). the provisions governing transfer of below. These conditions are included in interests under other forms of mortgage Existing $ 207.261 does not address the amendments to Parts 251 and 255. participation agreements and the transfer of interests in, or In addition to the conditions imposed assignment of, mortgages backing arrangements. in § 207.261, the coinsurance provisions We agree. There is no legal need to also include conditions designed to alert GNMA securities. Existing coinsurance distinguish between the interest created potential investors concerning the regulations, on the other hand, include by a transfer under a mortgage nature of the interest that they have conditions specifically designed to participation agreement or arrangement acquired. Mortgagees holding mortgages protect the interests of GNMA in similar and that created under a mortgage under Part 207 are insured by a Federal transactions. (See $ $ 251.106(d) and participation certificate. Nor can the Housing Administration insurance fund 255.106(d), redesignated as $ $ 251.106(c) Department identify any compelling against risk of significant loss under the and 255.106(c) in this final rule.) The policy justification for treating these contract of mortgage insurance. Thus, if Department is concerned that the transfers differently. Accordingly, the the participants share in the insurance presence of GNMA requirements in final rule has been revised to apply the payments in the same manner as the Parts 251 and 255 and the absence of same requirements for all transfers of mortgage payments, these mortgagees any similar requirements in Part 207 partial interests under participation do not pass a risk of significant loss to erroneously suggest that mortgages agreements or arrangements. the transferee under a mortgage under Part 207 are assignable and Applicability to Parts 251 and 255 participation arrangement. Under the partial interests are transferable, coinsurance programs, however, the without regard to GNMA. To correct this The proposed amendments were coinsuring lender assumes a risk of potential ambiguity, GNMA's existing applicable to Part 207 and did not affect significant loss and may effectively pass policies regarding such sales and Part 251-Coinsurance for the this risk to holders of participating transfers have been incorporated in Construction or Substantial interests, unless the participation revised § 207.261(f). Rehabilitation of Multifamily Housing agreement or arrangement provides that Additionally, this final rule clarifies Projects, and Part 255—Coinsurance for the holders are entitled to receive funds the GNMA requirements for the the Purchase or Refinancing of Existing other than the insurnace payment. In the assignment of, and the transfer of partial Multifamily Housing Projects. One past, this situation was acceptable interests in, coinsured mortgages under commenter urged that the changes to because the coinsurance provisions Part 255. Currently, Part 255 requires Part 207 should also be reflected in these permitted transfers to a limited class of GNMA approval for the assignment of two parts. more sophisticated investors (ie., coinsured mortgages that are used to The notice of proposed rulemaking did lenders approved by the Commissioner back securities guaranteed by GNMA. not specifically state that the proposed or qualified pension funds, retirement The regulation does not, however, rule would be applicable to coinsured funds and profit sharing plans). The contain provisions to protect GNMA mortgages. However, the purpose of the final coinsurance regulations adopted interests in transactions involving the proposed rule was to encourage the here, however, include no restrictions on transfer of partial interests in such addition of capital into the mortgage the class of transferees. The Department mortgages. This rule adds a provision market by liberalizing the procedures fears that many of these new, ($ 255.106(c)(2) providing GNMA requiring prior HUD approval for the potentially unsophisticated, transferees safeguards similar to those provided in transfer of interests in multifamily may confuse the coinsurance programs $ $ 207.261(f) and 251.106(C)(2) with mortgages. Since the provisions with other FHA mortgage insurance respect to such partial interests. Any Page 17
for each factor and the total national data for each factor expressed as a denominator. This ratio is then multiplied by the amount available for allocation. Data for areas eligible for assistance under Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Title V-eligible area data) are excluded from the data for a State or a consortium. Title V-eligible area data for States and consortia are also excluded from the total national data.
3. In $ 511.33, paragraph (C) is revised to read as follows:
8 511.33 Reallocation of rental rehabilitation grant amounts.
concerned the scope of the exclusion of matter of policy, the Department exemption unnecessary and that good cause exists counties. These Title V-eligible area for making this rule effective as soon data are excluded from both the total after publication as possible. The national data and the data for a State or revision to $ 511.50 merely conforms a consortium. This revision enables the that section to section 17(e)(1) of the Department to determine formula 1937 Act, as amended by section • allocations as it has in the past but 103(e)(1)(B) of the Technical without the need for waiving $ 511.30(d). Amendments Act of 1984. No additional Other Information public comment is needed with respect to the revision of the deobligation · A Finding on No Significant Impact requirement in § 511.33(c), since the with respect to the environment has public had the opportunity to comment been made in accordance with HUD on this provision in the interim rule and regulations in 24 CFR Part 50, which it was reasonably foreseeable that the implements section 102(2)(C) of the Department might alter the mandatory National Environmental Policy Act of deobligation provision. Public comment 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332. The Finding of No is not needed with respect to the Significant Impact is available for public narrowing of the prohibition of use of inspection during regular business hours Tiile V-area data in calculating formula in the Office of the General Counsel, allocations under $ 511.30(d), because Rules Docket Clerk, at the above this last revision conforms the rule to address. This rule does not constitute a "major the practice the Department has been tule" as that term is defined in section following since the inception of the (b) of the Executive Order on Federal program. This rule was not listed in the Regulations issued by the President on Department's Semiannual Agenda of ebruary 17, 1981. Analysis of the rule Regulations published on April 21, 1986, indicates that it would not: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 (51 FR 14036) under Executive Order miilion or more; (2) cause a major 12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Encrease in costs or prices for Assistance program number is 14 230. = 'onsumers, individual industries, 'ederal, State or local government List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 511 gencies, or geographic regions; or (3) Administrative practice and - ave a significant adverse effect on procedure, Grant programs-Housing competition, employment, investment, and community development, Low and roductivity, innovation, or on the moderate income housing, Rental -bility of United States-based rehabilitation grants, Reporting and nterprises to compete with foreign recordkeeping requirements. ased enterprises in domestic or export Accordingly, the Department amends -markets. 24 CFR 511 as follows: - In accordance with the provisions of 5 .S.C. 605(b), the Undersigned hereby PART 511-RENTAL REHABILITATION ertifies that this rule does not have a GRANT PROGRAM gnificant economic impact on a abstantial number of small entitites, The authority citation for Part 511 ecause statutorily eligible grantees and continues to read as follows: rate recipients are relatively larger Authority: Sec. 17, U.S. Housing Act of 1937 ties, urban counties or States, and the (42 U.S.C. 14370); sec. 7(d), Department of ntal rehabilitation grant amounts to be Housing and Urban Development Act (42 ade available to any grantee are U.S.C. 3535(d)). latively small in relation to other 2. In 511.30, paragraph (d)(1) is iurces of Federal funding for State and revised to read as follows: cal government and in relation to ivate investment in rental housing. $ 511.30 Allocation formula. The subject matter of this rulemaking -:tion relates to grants and is therefore (d) Calculating the formula. (1) The (empt from the notice and public formula is an equation with the data for mment requirements of section 553 of each entity referred to in paragraph (a) e Administrative Procedure Act. As a of this section expressed as a numerator
(c) Progress in carrying out rental rehabilitation programs. Begining in fiscal year 1985, HUD may deobligate rental rehabilitation grant amounts that are not committed to specific local projects in conformity with the schedule submitted by the grantee as part of its program description. Before deobligating grant amounts, HUD will consult with the affected grantee and take into account factors such as the timing of the grantee's program year (including the effect of any delays in obligation of funds by HUD); a reasonable start-up time for implementing a new program; if applicable, the timing of State distributions to State recipients; the timing of expected project approvals for projects in the grantee's pipeline; climatic or other considerations affecting rehabilitation work schedules; and other relevant considerations. HUD will deobligate any rental rehabilitation grant amounts that are not committed to specific local projects within two years of receipt by the grantee (three years in the case of a State that distributes reniai rehabilitation grant amounts to State recipients) or expended for eligible rehabilitation costs within four years of receipt by the grantee (five years in the case of State that distributes rental rehabilitation grant amounts to State recipients, HUD, on a case-by-case basis, may extend for an additional year any of the time periods referred to in the preceding sentence.
4. Section 511.50 is revised to read as follows:
8511.50 State election to administer a rental rehabilitation program. Rental rehabilitation grant allocations for States, determined under Subpart D for any fiscal year, will be administered by the State (as provided in 8 511.51) or by HUD (as provided by $ 511.52), at the election of the State. HUD will administer the allocation for any State Page 18
cancellation, consistent with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miss Janet E. Rice by telephone at (703) 557–3551 or by mail addressed to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Attention: Miss Janet E. Rice, Crystal Square 5, Suite 1008, Washington, DC 20231. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendments to $ $ 2.1, 2.101, 2.104, 2.112, 2.114, 2.132, and 2.145 were proposed in a rulemaking notice published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1984 at 49 FR 24033 and in the Official Gazette of July 3, 1984 at 1044 O.G. 2. Interested parties were requested to submit written comments on or before July 18, 1984. Written comments were submitted by one individual and one organization. The purpose of these amendments is to make three "housekeeping" corrections; to bring the language of two rules into conformity with the corresponding provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946; and to modify a particular practice. Several of the rules of practice in trademark cases were amended, effective February 27, 1983, by a final rule notice published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1983 at 48 FR 3972 and in the Official Gazette of February 22, 1983 at 1027 O.G. 129. A substantial number of other rules of practice in trademark cases were amended, effective June 22, 1983, by final rule notice published in the Federal Register on May 23, 1983 at 48 FR 23122 and in the Official Gazette of June 21, 1983 at 1031 O.G. 13. As a result of these rule amendments, three further rule amendments of a "housekeeping" nature are now necessary. First, because the rule amendments included changes in some section numbers and in the location of some provisions, the crossreference portions of $ $ 2.1 and 2.145(d)(1) are being corrected. Second, § 2.101(b), as amended effective February 27, 1983, contains a spelling error which is being corrected. Third, $ 2.114(c), which relates to the withdrawal of a petition for cancellation, is being amended so that it will be consistent with $ 2.106(c), as amended effective June 22, 1983, which relates to the withdrawal of an opposition.
Additionally, $ 2.104 (which lists the pertinent provisions in $ 2.101(c) were content requirements for an opposition) relocated in modified form in $ 2.101 (d) and $ 2.112(a) (which lists the content by amendment effective February 27, requirements for a petition for 1983. Further by amendment effective cancellation) are being amended to February 27, 1983, $ 2.111(c) adopted bring them into conformity with provisions which amplify that part of sections 13 and 14 of the Trademark Act. $ 2.85(e) relating to petitions for These amendments are being made as a cancellation. Accordingly, the crossresult of a comment contained in the reference portion of $ 2.1 is being recent case of Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina amended by changing "$ 2.101(c)" to Footwear, Inc., 705 F.2d 1316, 217 USPQ "$ 2.101(d)" and by adding a cross641 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The comment, which reference to $ 2.111(c). appears in footnote 6 at page 648, reads Section 2.101(b) is being amended by as follows: changing the spelling of the word 37 CFR 2.112 commands that a petition for "Principle" to "Principal". cancellation "set forth a short and plain Section 2.104 is being amended by statement showing how the petitioner is or will be damaged by the registration." This deleting the requirement that the directive is not, however, reflective of 15 USC opposition "set forth a short and plain 1064, which states that a petition to cancel statement showing how the opposer the registration of a mark may be filed by would be damaged by the registration of any person who believes that he is or will be the opposed mark" and substituting damaged by the registration." (Emphasis therefor a requirement that the ours.) Nor is it consistent with recent case opposition "set forth a short and plain law, discussed infra. statement showing why the opposer Finally, $ 2.132, as amended effective believes he would be damaged by the June 22, 1983, permits any party in the registration of the opposed mark." The position of defendant to file a motion to substitute requirement is in conformity dismiss for failure to take testimony with Section 13 of the Trademark Act, where plaintiff has either (1) failed to which states that any person "who take testimony or offer any other believes that he would be damaged by evidence ($ 2.132(a)) or (2) offered no the registration of a mark upon the evidence other than copies of Patent and principal register" may file an Trademark Office records and such opposition in the Patent and Trademark evidence is insufficient to show that Office. upon the law and the facts plaintiff is Section 2.112(a) is being amended by entitled to relief ($ 2.132(b)). Paragraph deleting the requirement that the (c) of the section, adopted effective June 22, 1983, provides that any motion filed petition to cancel "set forth a short and plain statement showing how the under paragraph (a) or (b) must be filed before the opening of the testimony petitioner is or will be damaged by the registration" and substituting therefor a period of the moving party. However, in requirement that the petition to cancel those cases where a plaintiff's testimony "set forth a short and plain statement period has expired and plaintiff has in fact failed to take testimony or offer any showing why the petitioner believes he is or will be damaged by the registration." The substitute requireme is in conformity with section 14 of the to grant a motion to dismiss under § 2.132(a) even if the motion was not Trademark Act, which states that a filed until after the opening of the petition to cancel the registration of a defendant's testimony period. mark may be filed "by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged Accordingly, the Patent and Trademark office is amending Rule $2.132(c) to by the registration." specify that the Trademark Trial and Section 2.114(c), which provides in Appeal Board may grant such a motion part that after an answer to a petition even if the motion was not filed until for cancellation is filed the petition nra, after the opening of the testimony period not be withdrawn without prejudice of the moving party. except with the consent of the registrant, is being amended to require Discussion of Specific Sections Being the written consent of the registrant TChanged requirement is in conformity with the Section 2.1 provides in part that $$1.1 existing practice under $ 2.114(c) and to 1.26 of Part I of Title 37 of the Code of consistent with $ 2.106(C), which, as Federal Regulations are applicable to amended effective June 22, 1983, trademark cases except such parts provides in part that after the answer thereof which specifically refer to an opposition is filed, the opposition patents and except $ 1.22 to the extent may not be withdrawn without that it is inconsistent with $ $ 2.85(e), prejudice except with the written 2.101(c) or 2.162(d). However, the consent of applicant. Page 19
competition, employment, investment, 1842(b)(8) of the Act to require the prevailing charges to assure that such productivity, innovation or on the ability Secretary to issue regulations that set use is consistent with the regulations of United States-based enterprises to forth the factors to be used in with respect to both the circumstances compete with foreign-based enterprises determining the cases in which the of application and the factors to be in domestic or export markets. application of the reasonable charge used. Carriers will undertake this review This regulation will have no direct methodology results in a reasonable during their annual update of reasonable effect on the economy or on Federal or charge that is grossly excessive or charge screens and will complete their State expenditures. It specifies rules grossly deficient. It also requires the review prior to January 1, 1987. Where under which special limits might be Secretary to provide in regulations the limits previously established by carriers established. Therefore, we conclude that factors to be considered in establishing are otherwise consistent with the this rule, in itself, will have no effect on a limit on the reasonable charge. We regulations, carriers may continue to the economy and no threshold criteria believe that section 1842(b)(8) of the Act apply special limits without obtaining under E.O. 12291 would be exceeded. requires us to include in the regulations comments from affected suppliers. Consequently, a regulatory impact the factors used by carriers in When a change in the limits is required, analysis is not required. However, in determining the need for a limit. We the limits will be proposed following the developing future Federal Register have also specified the procedures that procedures specified in the regulations. notices to promulgate limits under this they will follow in establishing limits on In this final rule, we specify that when rule, we will consider the economic grossly excessive or grossly deficient carriers propose to use their authority to impact of the limits and, if appropriate, charges. The procedures described in make inherent reasonableness prepare a regulatory impact analysis. this final rule that apply to the limits on determinations, they are instructed to B. Regulatory Flexibility Act grossly excessive or grossly deficient inform the affected suppliers or charges set by carriers under physicians of the factors considered in We prepare and publish a regulatory § 405.502(a)(7), which permits the carrier establishing the limit. Because of flexibility analysis consistent with the to consider other factors in determining congressional and industry concern Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 the inherent reasonableness of a service, about the manner in which some U.S.C. 601 through 612) unless the are new. Additionally, the proposed rule carriers exercise this authority, we are Secretary certifies that a regulation will only addressed the factors to be specifying in this rule and adding to the not have a significant impact on a considered in establishing a limit in the carrier guidelines a requirement that substantial number of small entities. As case of excessive charges. Thus, the carriers, in the future, obtain comments discussed above, this regulation will not, examples of the circumstances that must from affected groups on every proposed in itself, have an economic impact. exist before we will consider general application of their inherent Indirectly, it might result in future establishing a limit for excessive reasonableness authority. This rule issuances whereby small entities might charges and all the provisions provided that after evaluating the be affected. However, in each of these concerning deficient charges are new. comments received, the carrier must cases, procedures consistent with the We believe that it is unnecessary to inform the affected suppliers or RFA will be followed and a regulatory provide a notice of proposed rulemaking physicians of any final limit established. flexibility analysis performed, if The limit will be effective for services warranted. Therefore, we conclude, and to apply to the carriers the factors furnished no fewer than 30 days after the Secretary certifies, that these previously proposed to govern HCFA's the date of the carrier's notification. regulations will not have a significant actions. Although the notice of proposed economic impact on a substantial rulemaking solicited comment on the This procedure will not apply when a number of small entities. factors in the context of their use by carrier, in reviewing a specific charge, HCFA, there is no reason to believe that i determines that it is unreasonable. VI. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking commenters would have a different When carrier determinations of It is our practice to publish a general analysis if the factors were being reasonable allowances, which are based notice of proposed rulemaking in the applied by the carriers. * on factors other than customary and Federal Register, and afford prior public We also believe that it is unnecessary - prevailing charges, are lower than the comment on proposed rules. Such notice to provide another notice of proposed reasonable charge limits established by includes a statement of the time, place, rulemaking for the provision that sets HCFA, the carrier determination will and nature of rulemaking proceedings, forth the circumstances that HCFA or a remain in effect. reference to the legal authority under carrier would consider before V. Regulatory Impact Statement which the rule is proposed, and the establishing a limit for grossly excessive terms or substance of the proposed rule charges. Although this material was not A. Executive Order 12291 or a description of the subjects and included in the proposed regulations Executive Order 12291 (E.O. 12291) issues involved. However, we omit a text, it was included in the preamble to requires us to prepare and publish a notice of proposed rulemaking when we the proposed rule. Consequently, the regulatory impact analysis for any find good cause that such a notice and public was informed of our intent and regulations that are likely to meet comment procedure is impracticable, had the opportunity to comment. criteria for a "major rule". A major rule unnecessary, or contrary to the public Finally, we believe that it would be is one that would result in interest. In those cases, we incorporate unnecessary and contrary to the public (1) An annual effect on the economy a statement of the finding and its interest to provide a notice of proposed of $100 million or more; reasons in the rule issued. rulemaking with respect to special limits (2) A major increase in costs or prices These rules include amendments to that may be established if the for consumers, individual industries, the regulations that were not presented application of the reasonable charge Federal, State, or local government in the proposed rule but are necessary methodology results in grossly deficient agencies, or any geographical regions; or for the implementation of section 9304(a) charges. In considering the need for (3) Significant adverse effects on of COBRA. That section enacted section these limits and in calculating the limits, Page 20
amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the provisions of $ 1065.13(d)(4) of the order, the temporary revision of certain provisions of the order regulating the handling of milk in the NebraskaWestern lowa marketing area is being considered for the months of September through December 1986. All persons who desire to submit written data, views or arguments about the proposed revision should send two copies of their views to the Dairy Division, AMS, Room 2968, South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, by the 7th day after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The period for filing comments is limited to seven days because a longer period would not provide the time needed to complete the required procedures and include September 1986 in the temporary revision period. All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available for public inspection in the Dairy Division during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Statement of Consideration The provisions proposed to be revised are the diversion limitation percentages set forth in § 1065.13(d). The revisions would be applicable for the months of September through December 1986. The specific revisions would increase the diversion limitation percentages for the months of September through December 1986 by 20 percentage points from the present 40 percent to 60 percent. The order's diversion limits were revised temporarily from 50 to 60 percent for the months of May through August 1986. Section 1065.13(d) of the NebraskaWestern lowa milk order allows the Director of the Dairy Division to increase the diversion limitation percentages by up to 20 percentage points during any month to prevent uneconomic shipments merely for the purpose of assuring that dairy farmers will continue to have their milk priced under the order and thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such pricing. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI), a cooperative association which represents producers supplying the Nebraska-Western lowa market, requested that for the months of September through December 1986, the percentage of allowable diversions be increased 20 percentage points. The cooperative states that producer milk pooled under the order during the first six months of 1986 increased 11 percent over the same period in 1985. AMPI believes that the percentage of production increase will decline somewhat as a result of the Dairy
Termination Program, but that rule will set forth the rules and production will not drop below 1985 procedures to be followed by REA and levels before the end of 1986. The its borrowers for the development, cooperative therefore expects to have a approval and use of Power Requirement larger surplus of milk to dispose of in the Studies (PRS). Currently, this material is fall of 1986 than in the same period last set forth in REA Bulletin 120-1 year, when a temporary revision of the "Development, Approval and Use of diversion limits was also necessary. Power Requirements Studies." The According to the association, the milk primary purposes of this proposed surplus to the fluid needs of the market rulemaking action are to (1) codify the must go to manufacturing facilities. For regulations, (2) eliminate reference to the purposes of preserving milk quality the suggested procedure set forth in the by requiring less pumping and allowing Appendix to Bulletin 120-1 and (3) milk to be moved in the most efficient reduce Federal regulations. This manner possible, the cooperative states proposed rule will impact only REA that the most desirable way of handling electric program borrowers. the additional milk is to ship it directly DATE: Public comments must be received to nonpool plants. AMPI believes that no later than October 10, 1986. ADDRESS: Submit written comments to the ability of distributing plants to Archie W. Cain, Director, Electric Staff obtain needed supplies of milk for Class Division, Rural Electrification Administration, Room 1246 South Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250market will continue to have their milk 1500. All written submissions made priced under the order. pursuant to this action will be made available for public inspection during PART 1065–AMENDED regular business hours at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. § 1065.13(d) for the months of September Forecasting Branch, Electric Staff Georg A. Shultz, Chief, Energy through December 1986 to prevent Division at the above address, telephone uneconomic shipments of milk. number (202) 382–1920. The Draft Impact List of subjects in 7 CFR Part 1065 Analysis describing the options Milk Marketing Orders, considered in developing and Milk, implementing the proposal is available Dairy Products. on request from the above office. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 1065 continues to read as follows: to the Rural Electrification Act, as Authority: (Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674) seq.) (Act), REA proposes to amend its Signed at Washington, DC, on: August 6, policy as set forth in REA Bulletin 120–1. 1986. “Development, Approval and Use of C. H. Plumb Power Requirements Studies." This proposed action has been (FR Doc. 86–18011 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am] reviewed in accordance with Executive BILLING CODE 3410-02-M Order 12291, Federal Regulation. It will not (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) Rural Electrification Administration result in major increases in costs or price for consumers, individual 7 CFR Part 1709 industries, Federal, State or local Criteria for the Development, Approval regions; or (3) result in significant government agencies or geographic and Use of Power Requirements adverse effects on competition, Studies Prepared by REA Borrowers employment, investment or productivity AGENCY: Rural Electrification and, therefore, has been determined Administration. "not major." ACTION: Proposed rule. This action does not fall within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. SUMMARY: The Rural Electrification REA has concluded that promulgation of Administration (REA) proposes to this rule would not represent a major amend 7 CFR 1700 by adding part 1709 Federal action significantly affecting the PRIMARY SUPPORT DOCUMENTS, quality of the human environment under subpart A-Power Requirements Study, the National Environmental Policy Act sections 1709.1–1709.6. The proposed of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (1976)), Page 21
Administration (DEA) to place the data which DEA had gathered regarding Services. In accordance with the MPPP and PEPAP be placed into sanctions of Schedule I on the Schedule I of the CSA. A portion of the manufacture, distribution and letter is set forth below: possession of MPPP and PEPAP. At my direction, the Food and Drug DATE: Comments must be submitted on Administration (FDA) prepared a written or before September 10, 1986. evaluation of the document which you ADDRESS: Comments and objections provided. That agency also determined that should be submitted in quintuplicate to no applications are on file for investigations the Administrator, Drug Enforcement of these substances for any therapeutic Administration, 1405 l Street NW., indication. The National Institute on Drug Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Abuse was notified of the proposed control Federal Register Representative. recommendation and has concurred with the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: recommendation which the FDA forwarded Howard McClain, Jr., Chief, Drug to my office. Both agencies find that MPPP Control Section, Drug Enforcement and PEPAP meet the criteria for control in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Administration, Washington, D.C. 20537, Telephone: (202) 633–1366. I agree with the finding and recommend that MPPP and PEPAP be controlled in Schedule I SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July of the Controlled Substances Act. You should 10, 1985, the Administrator of the Drug find attached the document which I received Enforcement Administration issued a from the FDA which formed the basis for my final rule in the Federal Register recommendation. temporarily placing MPPP and PEPAP into Schedule I of the CSA pursuant to Briefly, the information gathered and the emergency scheduling provisions of reviewed by DEA and the scientific and 21 U.S.C. 811 (h). This action which medical evaluation by the Assistant became effective on August 12, 1985 was Secretary for Health shows that MPPP based on a finding by the Administrator and PEPAP: (1) Are potent anologs of that the emergency scheduling of MPPP meperidine, a Schedule II narcotic and PEPAP was necessary to avoid an substance, (2) produce the narcotic imminent hazard to the public safety. effects of typical morphine-like Section 201(h)(2) of the CSA (21 compounds including physical U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) provides that the dependence after chronic emergency scheduling of a substance administration, (3) are not approved for expires at the end of one year from the marketing by the Food and Drug effective date of the order. However, if a Administration or commercially rulemaking proceeding to schedule the available in the United States, (4) are substance has been initiated pursuant to manufactured in clandestine section 201(a)(1) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. laboratories, (5) have been identified by 811(a)(1)), the temporary scheduling may forensic laboratories in submissions of be extended for up to six months. Under drug evidence from the West Coast, (6) this provision, the temporary scheduling have been associated with the of MPPP and PEPAP which would expire production of drug-induced Parkinson's on August 12, 1986 may be extended disease in a number of users, and (7) until February 12, 1987. This extension is continue to pose a threat to the public being ordered by the Administrator of health and safety. DEA in a separate action. Based on the information gathered Since the temporary scheduling of and reviewed by DEA and relying on the MPPP and PEPAP, DEA has continued to scientific and medical evaluation and gather information regarding the abuse scheduling recommendation of the and abuse potential of MPPP and PEPAP Assistant Secretary for Health in and the clandestine manufacture, accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c), the distribution and trafficking of this Administrator of the Drug Enforcement substance. By letter dated June 12, 1986, Administration, pursuant to the the DEA Administrator submitted the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(a), finds that:
1. Based on information now available. MPPP and PEPAP have a high potential for abuse; 2. MPPP and PEPAP have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of MPPP or PEPAP under medical supervision. The Administrator further finds that MPPP and PEPAP are opiates as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(18) since they have an addiction-forming and addictionsustaining liability similar to that of morphine. Consequently, MPPP and PEPAP are narcotics since the definition of a narcotic, as stated in 21 U.S.C. 802(17)(A) includes: "Opium, opiates, derivatives of opium and opiates." Interested persons are invited to submit their comments, objections or requests for hearing in writing with regard to this proposal. Requests for a hearing should state with particularity the issues concerning which the person desires to be heard. All correspondence regarding this matter should be submitted in quintuplicate to the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, 1405 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative. In the event that comments, objections or requests for a hearing raise one or more issues which the Administrator finds warrant a hearing, the Administrator shall order a public hearing by notice in the Federal Register, summarizing the issues to be heard and setting the time for the hearing which will not be less than 30 days after the date of the notice. Pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, section 605(b), the Administrator certifies that the proposed placement of MPPP and PEPAP into Schedule I of the CSA will have no impact upon small businesses or other entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96354). The substances MPPP and PEPAP. proposed for control in this notice, have no legitimate use or manufacturer in the United States. In accordance with the provisions of Title 21, United States Code, section 811(a), this proposal to place MPPP and PEPAP into Schedule I is a formal rulemaking "on the record after opportunity for a hearing." Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 and, as such, have been exempted from the consultation requirements of Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193). Page 22
used in relation to other Schedule III (4) Any compound, mixture or prep whether the proposed amendment products. aration containing equal weights should be approved and incorporated In accordance with the provisions of of both tiletamine and zolazepam into the lowa regulatory program. If 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposal to place or any salt thereof and not mixed requested, a public hearing on the tiletamine and zolazepam into Schedule with other psychoactive sub proposed amendments has been stances... 7295 I and certain preparations thereof into scheduled for September 1, 1986. Any Schedule III, is a formal rulemaking "on person interested in speaking at the the record after opportunity for a hearing should contact Mr. William J. hearing." Such proceedings are Kovacic at the address or telephone conducted pursuant to the provisions of Dated: August 5, 1986. number listed below by August 26, 1986. 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557, and as such, have John C. Lawn, If no person has contacted Mr. Kovacic been exempted from the consultation Administrator, Drug Enforcement by that date to express an interest in the requirements of Executive Order 12291 Administration. hearing, the hearing will be cancelled. If (46 FR 13193). (FR Doc. 86–17950 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am) only one person requests an opportunity Pursuant to the authority vested in the to speak at the public hearing, a public Attorney General by section 201(a) of meeting, rather than a hearing, may be the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)) as held and the results of the meeting redelegated to the Administrator of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR included in the Administative Record. Drug Enforcement Administration by 28 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation ADDRESSES: The public hearing if CFR 0.100, and for the reasons set forth and Enforcement requested, is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. at above, the Administrator hereby the Kansas City Field Office, 1103 Grand proposes to amend 21 CFR Part 1308 as 30 CFR Part 915 Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. follows: Written comments and requests for an Public Comment Procedures and PART 1308—(AMENDED) opportunity to speak at the hearing Opportunity for Public Hearing on should be directed to Mr. William J. Proposed Modifications to the lowa 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR Kovacic, Director, Kansas City Field Permanent Regulatory Program Under Part 1308 continues to read as follows: Office, Office of Surface Mining the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation and Enforcement, Room Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b). Reclamation Act of 1977 502, 1103 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, 2. Paragraph (d) of § 1308.11 is AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Missouri 64106; Telephone: (816) 374 amended by adding a new subparagraph Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 5527. (25) to read as follows: Interior. Copies of the lowa program, the $ 1308.11 Schedule I. ACTION: Proposed rule. proposed modification to the program, a listing of any scheduled public meetings, SUMMARY: OSMRE is announcing and all written comments received in (d) Hallucinogenic substances. * ++ procedures for a public comment period response to this notice will be available and for requesting a public hearing on for public review at the OSMRE Field (25) Tiletamine ........ 7290 Office listed above and at the OSMRE Some trade or other names: 2 amendment submitted by lowa as an (ethylamino)-2-(2-thienyl) Headquarters Office and the Office of cyclohexanone. amendment to the State's permanent the State regulatory authority listed regulatory program (hereinafter referred below, during normal business hours to as the lowa program) under the Monday through Friday, excluding Surface Mining Control and Reclamation holidays. Each requestor may receive, Act of 1977 (SMCRA). free of charge, one single copy of the 3. Paragraph (e) of $ 1308.11 is amended by adding a new subparagraph dated June 16, 1986, consists of proposed The amendment submitted by letter proposed amendment by contacting the OSMRE Kansas City Field Office. (3) to read as follows: changes that reorganize lowa's State Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 8 1308.11 Schedule I. government. The proposed amendment and Enforcement would transfer all of the functions of Room 5315A (e) Depressants. * * • Iowa's Department of Soil 1100 L Street, NW. Conservation—including coal regulation Washington, DC 20240 2930 Iowa Department of Soil Conservation Some trade or other names: 4-(0- Conservation in the lowa Department of Wallace State Office Building flurophenyl)-6,8-dihydro-1,3,8Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Des Moines, Iowa 50319 trimethylpyrazole-(3,4,e) (1.4)diazepin-7(1H)-one. This notice sets forth the times and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: locations that the lowa program and the Mr. William J. Kovacic, Director, Kansas proposed amendment will be available City Field Office, Office of Surface for public inspection, the comment Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 4. Paragraph (c) of $ 1308.1 is period during which interested persons Room 502, 1103 Grand Avenue, Kansas amended by redesignating the existing may submit written comments on the City, Missouri 64106; Telephone: (816) 3745527. paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(11) as (c)(5) proposed amendment, and the through (C)(12) and adding a new procedures that will be followed for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: public hearing. paragraph (c)(4), reading as follows: DATES: Written comments from the I. Background to the lowa Program § 1308.13 Schedule III. public not received by 4:30 p.m., The lowa program was conditionally September 10, 1986 will not necessarily approved by notice published in the (c) Depressants. be considered in the decision on January 21, 1981 Federal Register (48 FR Page 23
general expenses and profit, As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, if we receive timely and complete responses, we will verify all information used in reaching our final determination. - Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the United States Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The United States Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated weighted-average amount by which the foreign market value of the merchandise subject to this investigation exceeds the r United States price as shown in the table below. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
requested, we will hold a public hearing EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1986. to afford interested parties an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: opportunity to comment on this Judith L. Nehring or Charles E. Wilson, preliminary determination at 9:30 a.m. Office of Investigations, Import on September 5, 1986, at the United Administration, International Trade States Department of Commerce, Room Administration, U.S. Department of 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Individuals who wish to participate in telephone: (202) 377-1776 or 377–5288. the hearing must submit a request to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, at the The Petition above address within 10 days of the publication of this notice. Requests On July 15, 1966, we received a petition in proper form filed by the Louis should contain: (1) The party's name, M. Gerson Co., Inc. In compliance with address, and telephone number; (2) the the filing requirements of 8 353.36 of the number of participants; (3) the reason Commerce Regulations (19 CFR 353.36), for attending; and (4) a list of the issues the petition alleged that imports of the to be discussed. subject merchandise from Brazil are In addition, prehearing briefs in at being, or are likely to be, sold in the least 10 copies must be submitted to the United States at less than fair value Deputy Assistant Secretary by August within the meaning of section 731 of the 29, 1986. Oral presentations will be Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), limited to issues raised in the briefs. All and that these imports are causing written views should be filed in accordance with 19 CFR 353.46, within material injury, or threaten material 30 days of this notice's publication, at injury, to a United States industry. the above address and in at least 10 Initiation of Investigation copies. Under section 732(c) of the Act, we This notice is published in accordance must determine, within 20 days after a with section 733(1) of the Act. petition is filed, whether it sets forth the Gilbert B. Kaplan, allegations necessary for the initiation Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import of an antidumping duty investigation, Administration. and whether it contains information August 4, 1986. reasonably available to the petitioner (FR Doc. 86–17990 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am) supporting the allegations. We have examined the pet tion on paint filters and strainers from Brazil and have found that it meets the (A-351-607] requirements of section 732(b) of the Paint Filters and Strainers from Brazil; Act. Therefore, in accordance with Initiation of Antidumping Duty section 732 of the Act, we are initiating Investigation an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether paint filters and AGENCY: International Trade strainers from Brazil are being, or are Administration, Import Administration, likely to be, sold in the United States at Department of Commerce. less than fair value. If our investigation ACTION: Notice. proceeds normally, we will make our preliminary determination by December SUMMARY: On the basis of a petition 22, 1986. filed in proper form with the United States Department of Commerce, we are Scope of Investigation initiating an antidumping duty The products covered by this investigation to determine whether paint investigation are paint filters and filters and strainers from Brazil are strainers of paper, containing cotton being, or are likely to be, sold in the gauze, provided for in item 256.080 of the United States at less than fair value. We Tariff Schedules of the United States, are notifying the United States Annotated (TSUSA), and paint filters International Trade Commission (ITC) and strainers of cotton gauze, containing of this action so that it may determine paper, provided for in item 386.5300. whether imports of this product are causing material injury, or threaten United States Price and Foreign Market material injury, to a United States Value industry. If this investigation proceeds In its calculation of sales at less than normally, the ITC will make its fair value, the petitioner based United preliminary determination on or before States price on actual sales or offers August 29, 1986, and we will make ours made by a United States purchaser of on or before December 22, 1986. Brazilian paint filters and strainers, with
ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(s) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonconfidential information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and confidential information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 'inder an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. The ITC will determine whether these imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. ndustry before the later of 120 days after we made our preliminary affirmative determination or 45 days after we make our final affirmative determination. Public Comment In accordance with $ 353.47 of our Regulations (19 CFR 353.47), if Page 24
Scope of Investigation Notification of ITC The products covered by this Section 702(d) of the Act requires us investigation are paint filters and to notify the ITC of this action, and to strainers of paper, containing cotton provide it with the information we used quaze, provided for in item 256.9080 of to arrive at this determination. We will the Tariff Schedules of the United States notify the ITC and make available to it Annotated (TSUSA), and paint filters all nonprivileged and nonproprietary and strainers of cotton gauze, containing information in our files. We will also paper, provided for in item 386.5300 of allow the ITC access to all privileged the TSUSA. and proprietary information in our files, Allegations of Subsidies provided it confirms that it will not disclose such information, either The petition lists a number of publicly or under an administrative practices by the government of Brazil protective order, without the written which allegedly confer subsidies to consent of the Deputy Assistant manufacturers, producers, or exporters Secretary for Import Administration. in Brazil of paint filters and strainers. We are initiating an investigation on the Preliminary Determination by ITC following programs: The ITC will determine by August 29, • Working Capital Financing for 1986, whether there is a reasonable Exporters indication that imports of paint filters • Preferential Export Financing for and strainers from Brazil materially Trading Companies injure, or threaten material injury to, a • Export Financing Under the CIC- U.S. industry. If its determination is CREGE 14-11 Circular negative, this investigation will • Financing for Storage of Exports terminate; otherwise, it will continue • PROEX Export Financing according to statutory procedures. This • Resolution 68 (FINEX) Financing notice is published pursuant to section • Resolution 509 (FINEX) Financing 702(C)(2) of the Act. • BEFIEX Gilbert B. Kaplan, • Income Tax Exemptions for Export Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Earnings Administration. • CIEX August 4, 1986. • Accelerated Depreciation for [FR Doc. 86–17994 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am) Brazilian-Made Capital Equipment • FINEP/ADTEN Long-Term Loans We are not initiating an investigation on the following programs: Short Supply Review on Certain • Banco Nacional de Coated Carbon Steel Sheet and Strip: Desenvolviemento Economico e Social Request for Comments (BNDES) Loans The Department has previously AGENCY: International Trade investigated BNDES long-term loans and Administration/Import Administration, has found that these loans are not Commerce. limited to a specific enterprise or ACTION: Notice and request for industry or group of enterprises or comments. industries. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: SUMMARY: The Department of Certain Carbon Steel Products from Commerce hereby announces its review Brazil, 49 FR 17988. Because petitioner of a request for a short supply has not submitted any new evidence or determination under Article 8 of the alleged changed circumstances with U.S.-EC Arrangement on Certain Steel respect to BNDES long-term loans, we Products with respect to certain teflon coated carbon steel sheet and strip. are not initiating an investigation of this program. DATES: Comments must be submitted no • IPI Export Credit Premium later than ten days from publication of The Department has previously this notice. investigated this program and has ADDRESS: Send all comments to determined that the program has been Nicholas C. Tolerico, Acting Director, terminated by the Government of Brazil. Office of Agreements Compliance, However, we will investigate the Import Administration, U.S. Department possible continued receipt of benefits of Commerce, 14th and Constitution under this program pursuant to long Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, term BEFIEX contracts as noted above. Room 3099. Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, Room 3099, (202) 377-0159. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article 8 of the U.S. “. . . determines that because of abnormal supply or demand factors, the U.S. steel industry will be unable to meet demand in the USA for a particular product (including substantial objective evidence such as allocation, extended delivery periods, or other relevant factors), an additional tonnage shall be allowed for such product. ... We have received a short supply request for cold rolled teflon coated carbon steel sheet and strip, in thicknesses ranging from 0.18 to 0.28 mm and widths ranging from 105 to 508 mm, having a one-sided chromed teflon coating of 23 to 26 microns, to be used in the production of automotive engine gaskets. Any party interested in commenting on this request should send written comments as soon as possible. and no later than ten days from publication of this notice. Comments should focus on the economic factors involved in granting or denying this request. Commerce will maintain this request and all comments in a public file. Anyone submitting business proprietary information should clearly identify the business proprietary portion of the submission and also provide a nonproprietary submission which can be placed in the public file. The public file will be maintained in the Central Records Unit, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B 099 at the above address. Gilbert B. Kaplan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 86–17996 Filed 8-3-86; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 3510-05-M
The MCTL Implementation Technical A meeting of the MCTL and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises and assists the Office of Expo Administration in the implementation : the Militarily Critical Technologies List Page 25
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff [ Docket No. TA86-4-2-002] August 6, 1986. Take notice that Columbia Gas East Tennessee Natural Gas Co.; Transmission Corporation (Columbia) Compliance Filing on July 28, 1986, tendered for filing the proposed changes to its FERC Gas August 6, 1986. Tariff, Original Volume No. 1: Take notice that on July 29, 1986, East Third Revised Sheet No. 66 Original Tennessee Natural Gas Company (East Sheet No. 66A Tennessee) filed Substitute Nineteenth Columbia states that the foregoing Revised Sheet No. 4 and Sixth Revised tariff sheets are being filed to recover Sheet No. 122 to Original Volume No. 1 take-or-pay costs which its pipeline of its FERC Gas Tariff, to be effective suppliers are proposing to directly bill to July 1, 1986. Columbia in various proceedings. While East Tennessee states that the Columbia strongly opposes these direct propose of this filing is to (1) track a tilling schemes, it is constrained to revision to the Gas Rate charged by make this filing in order to have some Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a means of recovery of these costs from Division of Tenneco Inc., as required by its customers, without subjecting itself the Commission's June 27, 1986 Letter to being placed at a competitive Order in this proceeding, and (2) revise disadvantage vis-a-vis these pipeline its PGA clause consistent with the June suppliers. 27 Letter Order. Columbia urges the Commission to address the proper methods of pipeline East Tennessee states that copies of recovery of prudently incurred take-or the filing have been mailed to all of its pay costs and other contract reformation jurisdictional customers and affected costs on a generic basis in the context of states regulatory commissions. Columbia's Petition for Rulemaking in Any person desiring to be heard or to Docket No. RM86–10. In the alternative, protect said filing should file a motion to Columbia requests that the instant filing intervene or a protest with the Federal be consolidated with the proceeding in Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Docket No. North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, RP86–119-000, which is currently set for DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 214 expedited hearing. and 211 of the Commission's Rules of Columbia states that it will promptly Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, withdraw the instant filing in the event 385.211). All such motions or protests the Commission rejects proposals made should be filed on or before August 13, by other pipelines to directly bill and 1986. Protests will be considered by the target their take-or-pay costs. Commission in determining the the proceeding. Any person wishing to Any person desiring to be heard or to become a party must file a motion to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file intervene or protest with the Federal with the Commission and are available Energy Regulatory Commission, Union for public inspection. Center Plaza Building, 825 North Capitol Kenneth F. Plumb, Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Secretary the Commission's Rules of Practice and (FR Doc. 86–18018 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am) Procedure. All such motions or protests BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Pacific Power & Light Co., Application August 6, 1986. Take notice that on July 28, 1986, PacifiCorp dba Pacific Power & Light Company (Pacific) filed its application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act, seeking an order (1) authorizing it to purchase, acquire, and take securities of other public utilities, (2) modifying the reporting requirement of 18 CFR 33.8 to require only an annual report, and (3) waiving the Exhibit D filing requirements in part Purchases of utility securities will be part of a passive investment program and are not designed to obtain or exercise control over any utility. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion : intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before August 18, 1986. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for pub? : inspection. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary (FR Doc. 86–18021 Filed 8-8-86; 8:45 am)
(Docket Nos. ES86-50-000, et al.)
Electric rate and corporate regulations filings; Central Maine Power Co., et al. August 6, 1986. Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission: 1. Central Maine Power Company (Docket No. ES86-50-000] Take notice that on July 29, 1986. Central Maine Power Company (Applicant) filed an application, pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act, seeking authority to issue ca or before December 31, 1987, Bank Nors and Commercial Paper maturing one year or less after the date of issuance : an aggregate principal amount not Page 26
k. Purpose of Project: Project power 11a. Type of Application: Preliminary would be sold to Niagara Mohawk Permit. Power Corporation. b. Project No.: 10003-000. 1. This notice also consists of the c. Date Filed: May 30, 1986. following standard paragraphs: A3, A9, d. Applicant: Mr. John H. McCann, Jr. B, C, and D1. 10a. Type of Application: Preliminary e. Name of Project: Oneco Pond. f. Location: On the Moosup River in Permit. b. Project No.: 9974-000. Windham County, Connecticut. c. Date Filed: April 16, 1986. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power d. Applicant: Rough and Ready Hydro Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). Company. h. Contact Person: John H. McCann, e. Name of Project: Upper Watertown Jr., Box 429, Oneco, CT 06373; Jeffrey Dam. Marlowe, New Found Power Company. f. Location: On the Rock River in the Inc., P.O. Box 576, Hope Valley, RI city of Watertown, Jefferson County, 02832. (401) 539-2336. Wisconsin. i. Comment Date: September 19, 1986. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power j. Description of Project: The proposed Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). run-of-river project would consist of: (1) h. Contact Person: Elaine Hitchcock. The existing 9-foot-high and 96-foot-long Principal, Rough and Ready Hydro concrete and stone masonry Oneco Company, 423 Green Tree Road, Kohler, Pond Dam with spillway crest elevation WI 53044, (414) 452-2624. of 350 feet mean sea level; (2) a small i. Comment Date: September 18, 1986. impoundment; (3) an existing 10-foot j. Description of Project: The proposed wide, 45-foot-long open canal; (4) an project would consist of: (1) The existing existing 64-foot-long underground concrete and timber Upper Watertown conduit; (5) an existing 65-foot-long open Dam approximately 175 feet long and 12 canal; (6) an existing powerhouse with 3 feet high; (2) an existing 64 acre new turbine-generator units with a total reservoir having a storage capacity of installed capacity of 60 kW: (7) an 550 acre-feet at a normal maximum existing 180-foot-long tailrace; and (8) surface elevation of 821 msl; (3) an other appurtenances. The existing existing reinforced concrete powerhouse facilities are owned by the Applicant. approximately 94 feet by 38 feet The Applicant estimates an average containing two turbine/generator units annual generation of 210,000 kWh. having a total installed capacity of 400 k. Purpose of Project: Project energy kW operating at 12 feet of hydraulic would be utilized in the adjacent head; (4) an existing tailrace channel: McCann Manufacturing Company and and (5) appurtenant facilities. An the excess would be sold to Northeast existing 8.3-kV distribution line is Utilities Service Company. available at the site. The existing 1. This notice also consists of the facilities would be rehabilitated and put back into service. The applicant following standard paragraphs: A5, A7, A9, B, C, and D2. estimates that the average annual energy generation would be 1,550,000 m. Proposed Scope under this Permit: kWh. The project dam is owned by the A preliminary permit, if issued, does not Wisconsin Electric Power Company. authorize construction. During the term k. Purpose of Project: The applicant of the permit the Applicant would intends to sell the power generated at investigate project design alternatives, the proposed facility to the Wisconsin financial feasibility, environmental Electric Power Company. effects of project construction and 1. This notice also consists of the operation, and project power potential. following standard paragraphs: A5, A7, Depending upon the outcome of the A9, B, C, and D2. studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with an application m. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit-A preliminary permit, if issued, for FERC license. Applicant estimates does not authorize construction. that the cost of the studies under permit Applicant seeks issuance of a would be $7,000. preliminary permit for a period of 36 12a. Type of Application: Major months during which time applicant License under 5MW. would prepare studies of the hydraulic, b. Project No: 9340-000. construction, economic, environmental, c. Date Filed: July 10, 1985. historic and recreational aspects of the d. Applicant; Lawrence E. Smith and project. Depending on the outcome of Veronic P. Smith. the studies, applicant would prepare an e. Name of Project: Kezar Falls. application for an FERC license. f. Location: On the Ossipee River in Applicant estimates the cost of the York and Oxford County, Maine. studies under the permit would be g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power $125,000. Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
h. Contact Person: Mr. Warren A. Guninan, Power Technics, Inc., P.O. Box 1469, Dover, NH 03820, (603) 335–2606. i. Comment Date: September 26, 1986. j. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing Kezar Falls Lower Dam and the Kezar Falls Upper Dam owned by the applicants. The proposed facilities at the Kezar Falls Lower Dam consist of: (1) An existing 19-foot-high and 450-footlong concrete dam with an existing spillway crest elevation of 343 feet NGVD with new 2-foot-high flashboards; (2) an existing 30-acre surface reservoir with a storage capacity of 150 acre-feet at elevation 350 feel NGVD; (3) an existing 900-foot-long earthen dike adjacent to an intake canal with three 8-foot by 8-foot sluice gates at the head of the canal; (4) an existing 27foot-wide and 57-foot-long concrete powerhouse containing an existing turbine/generator with an installed capacity of 500 kW and a proposed turbine/generator for a total capacity of 905 kW; (5) a proposed 27.5-foot-wide and 25.5-foot-long concrete powerhouse to be located at the right abutment of the dam, and containing one turbine) generator for an installed capacity of 147 kW; (6) a proposed 7.5-foot-deep by 20-foot-wide and 100-foot-long flume from the left bank to the new powerhouse; (7) an existing tailrace 300 feet long; (8) an existing 150-foot-long transmission line from the existing powerhouse to a Central Maine Power substation, and a new 850-foot-long transmission line from the new powerhouse to the Central Maine Power substation; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The proposed facilities at the Kezar Falls Upper Dam consist of: (1) an existing 13-foot-high and 270-foot-long concrete dam with an existing spillway crest elevation of 364.9 feet NGVD with new 1.5-foot-high flashboards (2) an existing 25-acre surface reservoir with a storage capacity of 130 acre-feet at elevation 370.9 feet NGVD; (3) an existing 270-foot-long rock-filled, timber crib overflow dike; (4) an existing 150 foot-long intake canal; (5) a proposed intake structure having two head gates. (6) an existing 24-foot-wide and 35-footlong concrete powerhouse to contain one turbine/generator with an installed capacity of 340 kW: (7) a proposed 21.5 foot-wide and 25.5-foot-long concrete powerhouse to contain one turbine! generator with an installed capacity of 223 kW; (8) an existing 50-foot-long transmission line and a proposed 450foot-long transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The total estimated average annual energy |
What is the term for the dollar amount set by the government as the minimum necessary to meet the needs of a family?
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 aprendervalor Inc.
